2015/2065(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 a (new)

- having regard to the European Parliament's Written Declaration 0088/2007 'Investigating and remedying the abuse of power by large supermarkets operating in the European Union',

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the food trade has an increasingly significant cross-border dimension and is of particular importance for the functioning of the internal market; whereas cross-border trade between the EU Member States accounts for 20% of the EU’s total food and drink production; whereas 70% of all Member States’ food exports are to other Member States;

Amendment 100 #

Philippe JUVIN, Angélique DELAHAYE, Elisabetta GARDINI, Lara COMI, Michel DANTIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcom~~Notes 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 takes the view that EU regulation needs to be brought in alongside those platforms;

Amendment 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

Amendment 102 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Recognises and welcomes the national voluntary mechanisms that have been established and are proving effective in dealing with the problem of UTPs at national level; recognizes new systems can need time to show effectiveness;

Amendment 103 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Recognises that consumer habits in member states vary and that consumers benefit and expect certain kinds of promotions in different member states and action against commercial agreements which consequently undermine those promotions would be counter-productive to producers, suppliers and retailers;

Amendment 104 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Welcomes~~Emphasises that the development of alternative and informal mechanisms for dispute settlement and redress, in particular through mediation and amicable arrangements, can provide solutions as long as it is accompanied by relevant legislation to ensure compliance;

Amendment 105 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Welcomes the development of alternative and informal mechanisms for dispute settlement and redress, in particular through mediation and amicable arrangements; nevertheless considers that suitable legal protection needs to be provided by the mainstream judicial system;

Amendment 106 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Welcomes the development of alternative and informal mechanisms for dispute settlement and redress, in particular through mediation and amicable arrangements; points out, however, that use of these mechanisms is often motivated by high court fees, which are in many cases unaffordable and consequently prevent SMEs from accessing the usual judicial channels;

Amendment 107 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Welcomes the development of alternative and informal mechanisms for dispute settlement and redress, in particular through mediation and ~~amicable~~friendly arrangements;

Amendment 108 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Welcomes the~~Recalls that all Member States already have regulatory frameworks addressing UTPs; notes the recent regulatory action taken by some Member States, which have introduced provisions supplementing national competition law, broadened the scope of application of the directives on UTPs by extending their provisions to cover B2B relations, and set up independent enforcement agencies;

Amendment 109 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Welcom~~Notes the regulatory action taken by some Member States, which have introduced provisions supplementing national competition law, broadened the scope of application of the directives on UTPs by extending their provisions to cover B2B relations, and set up independent enforcement agencies;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the food trade has an increasingly significant cross-border dimension ~~and is of particular importance for the functioning of the internal market~~, with intra-Community trade playing a highly prominent role in this sector;

Amendment 110 #

Lara COMI, Elisabetta GARDINI, Angélique DELAHAYE, Michel DANTIN, Philippe JUVIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Draws attention to the growing fragmentation of rules governing UTPs and the enforcement of these rules in individual Member States; emphasises that the fragmentation of rules and of market conditions could lead to imbalance and have negative repercussions for suppliers, traders and consumers and the functioning of the internal market;

Amendment 111 #

Motion for a resolution
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 112 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Strongly believes that the EU needs a unified approach in the enforcement of rules if it is to guarantee greater legal certainty, facilitate cross-border trade, establish universal norms and promote an exchange of best practices across the EU;

Amendment 113 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Confirm~~Acknowledges the existence of UTPs in the food supply chain and acknowledges that they are contrary to the basic principles of law;

Amendment 114 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Confirms~~Is troubled by the existence of UTPs in the food supply chain and ~~acknowledg~~emphasises that they are contrary to the basic principles of law;

Amendment 115 #

Motion for a resolution
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 business ethics;

Amendment 116 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Confirms the existence of UTPs~~Notes that where UTPs exist in the food supply chain ~~and acknowledges that~~ they are contrary to the basic principles of law;

Amendment 117 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Confirms the existence of UTPs in the food supply chain that arise as a result of imbalances in bargaining power and acknowledges that they are contrary to the basic principles of law;

Amendment 118 #

Christel SCHALDEMOSE

Motion for a resolution
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 are already tackled in different forms in Member States;

Amendment 119 #

Motion for a resolution
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 stem from imbalances of power in a highly concentrated market;

Amendment 12 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the food trade has an increasingly significant cross-border dimension and ~~is of particular~~there is a big importance for the functioning of the internal market;

Amendment 120 #

Motion for a resolution
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; recognises that these basic principles should include prohibiting the stronger party in a contract from offloading corporate risk onto the weaker party in a contract;

Amendment 121 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Confirms the existence of some cases of UTPs in the food supply chain and acknowledges that they are contrary to the basic principles of law;

Amendment 122 #

Philippe JUVIN, Angélique DELAHAYE, Lara COMI, Elisabetta GARDINI, Michel DANTIN

Motion for a resolution
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 business ethics;

Amendment 123 #

Motion for a resolution
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 #

Lara COMI, Elisabetta GARDINI, Angélique DELAHAYE, Michel DANTIN, Philippe JUVIN

Motion for a resolution
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 125 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Endorses the Commission's view that UTPs arise as a result of a lack of balance in commercial relationships and a worrying increase in the bargaining power of larger entities, which gives them a dominant position on the market or a position in the commercial relationship that allows them to impose unfavourable contractual terms on weaker trading partners and to make use of unfair practices that grossly deviate from good commercial conduct and are contrary to the principles of good faith and fair dealing; condemns practices that exploit imbalances in bargaining power between economic operators and have an adverse effect on freedom to contract;

Amendment 126 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Endorses the Commission's view that UTPs arise as a result of a lack of balance in commercial relationships ~~and a worrying increase in the bargaining power of larger entities, which gives them~~, which can give larger entities a dominant position on the market ~~that~~, which can allows them to impose unfavourable contractual terms on weaker trading partners and to make use of unfair practices that grossly deviate from good commercial conduct and are contrary to the principles of good faith and fair dealing; condemns practices that exploit imbalances in bargaining power between economic operators and have an adverse effect on freedom to contract;

Amendment 127 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Endorses the Commission's view that UTPs can potentially arise as a result of a lack of balance in commercial relationships and a worrying increase in the bargaining power of larger entities, which gives them a dominant position on the market that allows them to impose unfavourable contractual terms on weaker trading partners and to make use of unfair practices that grossly deviate from good commercial conduct and are contrary to the principles of good faith and fair dealing; condemns practices that exploit imbalances in bargaining power between economic operators and have an adverse effect on freedom to contract;

Amendment 128 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Calls on the Commission to look in detail at possible developments as regards ‘own brands’, the effects of which, especially in the current economic crisis, are positive for consumers, but in the medium to long term could become negative, not only jeopardising the competitiveness of the agri-food industry but also curtailing consumer choice if the market penetration of own brands were to exceed a certain risk threshold, which ought to be set for each category of product;

Amendment 129 #

Nicola DANTI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Calls on the Commission to carefully consider the growing penetration of the agri-food chain by so-called ‘private labels’, which is liable to impede fair competition and adversely affect innovation and product quality as well as consumer choices when making purchases. Believes it necessary, therefore, to introduce specific measures to guarantee effective competition in this sector based on a balanced relationship between distributors and producers, which will also ensure that consumers receive correct information;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the food trade has an increasingly significant cross-border dimension and is of particular importance for the functioning of the internal market; whereas international trade between EU Member States accounts for around 20% of total food production in the EU, and whereas it is estimated that annually at least 70% of total exports of agricultural or food products from EU Member States go to other EU Member States3a; __________________ 3aReport of the High-Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain, December 2012.

Amendment 130 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Draws attention to the recent phenomenon of ‘private labels’, which allows distributors to be both the customers and the competitors of their own suppliers; stresses that there is a risk of this practice significantly limiting freedom of competition, both by compromising producers’ bargaining power and by considerably restricting the freedom of consumers by reducing their choice of products and making it difficult for them to compare prices effectively, which will prejudice the proper functioning of the market;

Amendment 131 #

Motion for a resolution
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 132 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Points out that UTPs imposed by parties in a stronger bargaining position clearly have a negative impact; stresses that UTPs ~~can~~have serious consequences, notably by hampering investment and product innovation, particularly in the field of the environment, working conditions and animal welfare;

Amendment 133 #

Motion for a resolution
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, thus impairing the quality, variety and innovative character of products supplied to consumers;

Amendment 134 #

Motion for a resolution
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~~, product innovation and consumers' choice of goods; and consequently consumers' access to innovative products;

Amendment 135 #

Motion for a resolution
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 and push companies to make savings at the expense of salaries, working conditions or the quality of raw materials;

Amendment 136 #

Motion for a resolution
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 business competitiveness, investment and product innovation across the food supply chain;

Amendment 137 #

Nicola DANTI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Points out that UTPs imposed by parties in a stronger bargaining position c~~learly~~an have a negative impact; stresses that UTPs can hamper investment and product innovation;

Amendment 138 #

Motion for a resolution
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, their quality and variety and could limit the choice for consumers;

Amendment 139 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Points out that UTPs imposed by parties in a stronger bargaining position clearly have a negative impact; ~~stresses~~Points out that UTPs ~~can hamper investment and product innovation~~imposed by parties in a stronger bargaining position clearly have a negative impact and limit consumers' actual freedom of choice;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas significant structural changes have taken place in the business-to- business (B2B) food supply chain in recent years, involving excessive concentration and vertical integration of entities operating in the production, processing and retail sectors, leading to the formation of veritable oligopolies;

Amendment 140 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Points out that UTPs imposed by parties in a stronger bargaining position clearly have a negative impact; s~~Stresses that UTPs can hamper investment and product innovation;

Amendment 141 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

Amendment 142 #

Michel DANTIN, Angélique DELAHAYE, Philippe JUVIN, Elisabetta GARDINI, Lara COMI

Motion for a resolution
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, and have a detrimental effect on product quality; in addition that UTPs lead to uncertainty in production which can also lead to overproduction and unnecessary food wastage;

Amendment 143 #

Motion for a resolution
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

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 145 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Points out that that the impact UTPs have on consumers has not been thoroughly investigated at EU level, in particular the quality and quantity of food and agricultural products and distribution margins;

Amendment 146 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Notes the serious misuse of basic foods as "loss leaders" by large scale retailers and the risks posed by this activity to primary food producers and the threat to the long term sustainability of European production of such items;

Amendment 147 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Notes that unpredictable changes of contract terms may lead to overproduction and result in unnecessary food waste;

Amendment 148 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)

10b. Believes that there is a need to rebalance bargaining power across the supply chain, placing particular emphasis on guaranteeing customers high-quality food products; draws particular attention to the issues surrounding margin share and the impact these have on the consumer end-price; insists on the need to increase the competitiveness of individual market players and make prices more transparent across the food supply chain;

Amendment 149 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)

10b. Calls on the Member States to encourage supermarket food stores to offer routinely to food aid associations foodstuffs that are unsold but still edible, notably by cutting drastically or abolishing VAT on food gifts to the most needy;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

Amendment 150 #

Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS, Nicola DANTI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Believes that the Supply Chain Initiative and other national and EU voluntary systems (codes of good practice, voluntary dispute settlement mechanisms) should be further developed and promoted; in conjunction with effective and strong enforcement mechanisms at Member State level and EU level coordination, encourages producers and traders to become involved in such initiatives; takes the view that they should play ~~a leading~~ role in efforts to combat UTPs; recognises the potential that such initiatives have as alternative forums for dispute resolution;

Amendment 151 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Believes that ~~the Supply Chain Initiative and other~~ national and EU voluntary systems (codes of good practice, voluntary dispute settlement mechanisms) should be further developed and promoted alongside relevant EU legislation ensuring that complaints can be lodged anonymously and establishing dissuasive penalties; encourages producers and traders to become involved in such initiatives; takes the view that they should play a leading role in efforts to combat UTPs;

Amendment 152 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Believes that the Supply Chain Initiative and other national and EU voluntary systems (codes of good practice, voluntary dispute settlement mechanisms) should be further developed and impro~~moted; encourages~~ved so as to overcome the current reticence on the part of producers and traders to become involved in such initiatives; takes the view that they should play a leading role in efforts to combat UTPs;

Amendment 153 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Believes that the Supply Chain Initiative and other national and EU voluntary systems (codes of good practice, voluntary dispute settlement mechanisms) should be further developed and promoted~~; encourages producers and traders~~, particularly by securing full anonymity of complaints and robust sanctions regime; encourages producers and traders, including farmers' organisations, to become involved in such initiatives; takes the view that they should play a leading role in efforts to combat UTPs;

Amendment 154 #

Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Andreas SCHWAB, Roberta METSOLA, Ivan ŠTEFANEC

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

Amendment 155 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Welcomes the recent step by the Supply Chain Initiative that enables SMEs and micro-enterprises to join under a simplified procedure; points out that the number of SMEs registered has steadily increased and that they are now more numerous than larger entities;

Amendment 156 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Points out that many Member States have adopted measures to combat UTPs in the food supply chain; stresses the need for a coordinated and harmonised response at EU level to improve the functioning of the internal market in agricultural products;

Amendment 157 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)

11b. Calls on the Commission to establish a compulsory code of good trading practices in the food supply chain which must be based on a clear correlation between the price paid to the farmer and the price paid by the consumer; points to the need to introduce, as a minimum, the requirement to conclude written contracts (setting out, for example, prices and delivery and payment times and methods) and establish legal payment periods, with Member States being required to set the time limits for these; calls on the Commission, when establishing this compulsory code of good practice, to set up a supervisory body and a system of penalties for UTPs;

Amendment 158 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 c (new)

11c. Calls on the Commission and Member States to facilitate and encourage producers to join producer organisations and associations of producer organisations in order to increase their bargaining power and position in the food supply chain;

Amendment 159 #

Motion for a resolution
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;~~deleted

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas significant structural changes have taken place in the business-to- business (B2B) food supply chain in recent years, involving concentration and horizontal, cross border and vertical integration of entities operating in the production, processing and retail sectors;

Amendment 160 #

Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Andreas SCHWAB, Roberta METSOLA, Ivan ŠTEFANEC

Motion for a resolution
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;~~deleted

Amendment 161 #

Motion for a resolution
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;~~deleted

Amendment 162 #

Motion for a resolution
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 and the fact that they do not apply to the whole supply chain and do not have the power to impose effective penalties;

Amendment 163 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Acknowledges, nonetheless, that voluntary and self-regulatory schemes ~~are not enough~~may prove insufficient to put an end to UTPs once and for all~~, owing to the lack of effective enforcement mechanisms~~; with that in mind, awaits the results of the Commission’s assessment to see what lessons can be learnt from it;

Amendment 164 #

Motion for a resolution
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 mechanism~~can offer a cost-effective means to ensure fair conduct in the market and resolve disputes if coupled with effective enforcement mechanisms which can take different forms depending on Member State legal and regulatory circumstances;

Amendment 165 #

Motion for a resolution
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, scant producer participation, conflicts of interest between the parties concerned and the absence of any concrete penalties for non- compliance;

Amendment 166 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

Amendment 167 #

Motion for a resolution
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 168 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12b. Stresses that the disparities between the Member States’ laws on UTPs in the food supply chain enable the party that is in the stronger position to engage in forum shopping to find the Member State with the least strict rules in this area;

Amendment 169 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Takes the view that the European Supply Chain Initiative needs to be changed in order to address its shortcomings, in particular by ensuring that complaints can be lodged anonymously and establishing dissuasive penalties; takes the view that the initiative needs to be brought in alongside the EU legislation required to ensure that those shortcomings are addressed;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas significant structural changes have taken place in the business-to- business (B2B) food supply chain in recent years, involving concentration and vertical integration of entities operating in the production, processing and retail sectors; whereas there is a problem with retailers’ own brands in that traders become direct competitors of their own suppliers; whereas ongoing structural changes in the supply chain are resulting in more intense competition on the food products market, and whereas that in turn could lead to price wars, the principal victims of which are producers (farmers), who come under pressure from falling prices and have to cut production costs;

Amendment 170 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Notes that there is EU legislation already in place to combat unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices (Directive 2005/29/EC), but points out that there is no EU legislation to combat unfair practices between different operators in the agri-food chain;

Amendment 171 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)

12b. Emphasises that in spite of the aforementioned initiative, producers and SMEs are being subjected to UTPs, as demonstrated by the current market crisis that certain sectors, such as the dairy industry, are experiencing;

Amendment 172 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)

12b. Points out that any serious analysis of UTPs must take as its starting point the new economic paradigm that has emerged over the last few years: large-scale retail in which access to sales outlets has become the subject of fierce competition under the control of the supermarkets; points out that some competition authorities have identified specific practices involving the transfer of excessive risk to suppliers which could render them less competitive; points out that those authorities also concluded that own brands bring in an element of horizontal competition vis-à-vis industry brands that has not been given sufficient consideration;

Amendment 173 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 c (new)

12c. Points out that own brands represent a strategic issue in the medium and long term; emphasises that, over the last few years, several economists have drawn attention to the existence of a ‘risk threshold’ beyond which the market penetration of own brands in a given category of product would turn the current positive effects of own brands into negative effects, and provide a disincentive as regards the innovative efforts of many companies;

Amendment 174 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Stresses th~~at action~~e need to combat UTPs ~~will help~~ to ensure ~~the~~a proper functioning of the internal market and to develop cross- border trading in the EU;

Amendment 175 #

Motion for a resolution
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; points out that a fragmented market leads to regulatory uncertainty for those involved and thus creates an imbalance in surplus distribution along the value chain in the various countries concerned;

Amendment 176 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Stresses that action to combat UTPs ~~will~~should help to ~~ensure the proper functioning of the internal market and to develop cross-border trading in the EU~~fight the abuse of market power, which is being used by large economic groups to control the agri-food sector, in particular by setting market prices; recommends, in this context, that all the Member States implement practices designed to promote improvements in farmers’ income, notably through action to combat dumping;

Amendment 177 #

Motion for a resolution
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 within the EU and with third countries and to bring equity into the food supply chain, particularly for farmers and primary producers but also for consumers;

Amendment 178 #

Motion for a resolution
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 within the EU and with third countries;

Amendment 179 #

Motion for a resolution
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 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas entities involved in the food products supply chain have reported UTPs principally consisting of: – payment delays; – restricted access to the market; – unilateral or retroactive changes to contract terms; – failing to provide sufficiently detailed information on contract terms or formulating them ambiguously; – refusal to conclude a written contract; – sudden and unjustified cancellation of a contract; – unfair transfer of commercial risk; – demanding payment for goods or services that are of no value to one party to the contract; – charging for fictitious services; – transferring transport and storage costs to suppliers; – forced involvement in promotions, charging to place goods in prominent positions in shops and other additional fees; – transferring to suppliers the costs of promoting goods in sales areas; – imposing unconditional return of unsold merchandise; – exerting pressure to cut prices; – preventing trading partners from sourcing from other Member States (territorial supply constraints);

Amendment 180 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Calls on the Commission to define clearly the fundamental principles of fair negotiation between all actors in the food supply chain;

Amendment 181 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)

13b. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to combat the territorial limitations which make it impossible to obtain identical prices in another Member State or from a central point, while protecting the interests of producers;

Amendment 182 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Calls on the Commission and the Member States fully and consistently to enforce competition law, rules on unfair competition and anti-trust rules; ~~points out, nonetheless, that competition law can go only a limited way towards resolving the problem of unfair practices;~~

Amendment 183 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

Amendment 184 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Notes that short food supply chains have generally lower risk of UTPs' occurrence and are better for the environment; demands comprehensive action from the Commission to promote and facilitate short, local and sustainable food supply chains;

Amendment 185 #

James NICHOLSON, Mairead McGUINNESS, Paolo DE CASTRO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Calls on the Commission and Member States to fully and consistently enforce Directive 2011/7/EU on combating late payments in commercial transactions, in order that creditors be paid within 60 days by businesses, or otherwise face interest payments and payment of reasonable recovery costs of the creditor;

Amendment 186 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Notes that while private–own brand labelled products can bring increased value and choice to consumers, they give an unfair and anti-competitive position to retailers, who become both customer and competitor; notes that market share in a private-own brand product category may undermine the benefits of these products for consumers and the agri-food industry; insists that the issue of private-own brands requires particular attention from the Commission and Competition Authorities, with a need to address the potential long term consequences for the supply chain;

Amendment 187 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Calls on the Commission to interpret competition law in such a way that the efficiency and welfare of producers are taken into account in order to correct the imbalances in the food chain;

Amendment 188 #

Michel DANTIN, Angélique DELAHAYE, Philippe JUVIN, Elisabetta GARDINI, Lara COMI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Points out that UTPs imposed by parties in a stronger bargaining position clearly have a negative impact; points out that the most serious consequence of UTPs may be to hamper investment and product innovation, reducing quality and variety and thereby curtailing consumer choice;

Amendment 189 #

Motion for a resolution
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 19 #

Philippe JUVIN, Angélique DELAHAYE, Lara COMI, Elisabetta GARDINI, Michel DANTIN

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas, given the impossibility of stopping the agricultural production process once begun, and the perishable nature of its products, farmers are particularly susceptible to UTPs in the food supply chain;

Amendment 190 #

Motion for a resolution
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 #

Philippe JUVIN, Angélique DELAHAYE, Lara COMI, Elisabetta GARDINI, Michel DANTIN

Motion for a resolution
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 #

Philippe JUVIN, Angélique DELAHAYE, Lara COMI, Elisabetta GARDINI, Michel DANTIN

Motion for a resolution
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 #

Philippe JUVIN, Angélique DELAHAYE, Lara COMI, Elisabetta GARDINI, Michel DANTIN

Motion for a resolution
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 #

Philippe JUVIN, Angélique DELAHAYE, Lara COMI, Elisabetta GARDINI, Michel DANTIN

Motion for a resolution
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 195 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Reaffirms that f~~ree~~air and ~~fair competition~~balanced relations among all actors, freedom to contract and proper enforcement of the relevant legislation are of key importance in ensuring the proper functioning of the food supply chain;

Amendment 196 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Reaffirms that free and fair competition, freedom to contract and proper enforcement of the relevant legislation, making it possible to protect all economic actors of all sizes operating within the food supply chain, are of key importance in ensuring the proper functioning of the food supply chain;

Amendment 197 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Reaffirms that free and fair competition, freedom to contract and ~~proper~~strong and effective enforcement of the relevant legislation to protect all enterprises in the food supply chain, irrespective of geographical location, are of key importance in ensuring the proper functioning of the food supply chain;

Amendment 198 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Reaffirms that free and fair competition, freedom to contract and ~~proper~~strong and effective enforcement of the relevant legislation to protect all entities in the food supply chain, irrespective of geographical location are of key importance in ensuring the proper functioning of the food supply chain;

Amendment 199 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Points out that taking advantage of a stronger bargaining position to impose UTPs is a violation of the principle of freedom to contract, as the stronger party has more say in the shape that the business relationship is to take and can unilaterally impose terms that disproportionately serve its own financial interests, and the weaker party has no option other than to agree to those terms; believes that steps need to be taken to build mutual trust between supply chain partners, on the basis of the principles of freedom to contract~~, equivalence of benefits and freedom to take advantage of those benefits~~ and transparency in sharing profits from the food supply chain;

Amendment 2 #

Philippe JUVIN, Angélique DELAHAYE, Lara COMI, Elisabetta GARDINI, Michel DANTIN

Motion for a resolution
Citation 15 a (new)

- having regard to the Supply Chain Initiative progress report of July 2015,

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
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 200 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Points out that taking advantage of a stronger bargaining position to impose UTPs is a violation of the principle of freedom to contract, as the stronger party has more say in the shape that the business relationship is to take and can unilaterally impose terms that disproportionately serve its own financial interests, and the weaker party often has no option other than to agree to those terms; believes that steps need to be taken to build mutual trust between supply chain partners, on the basis of the principles of freedom to contract, equivalence of benefits and freedom to take advantage of those benefits;

Amendment 201 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Points out that taking advantage of a stronger bargaining position to impose UTPs is a violation of the principle of freedom to contract, as the stronger party has more say in the shape that the business relationship is to take and can unilaterally impose terms that disproportionately serve its own financial interests, and the weaker party has no option other than to agree to those terms; believes that steps need to be taken to build mutual trust between supply chain partners, on the basis of the principles of freedom to contract, equivalence of benefits and freedom to take advantage of those benefits; calls on the Commission in this respect to pinpoint specific rules and control mechanisms for oligopolies and large distribution chains, which can slip into abuses of dominant positions in respect of weaker parties in contracts;

Amendment 202 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Points out that taking advantage of a stronger bargaining position to impose UTPs is a violation of the principle of freedom to contract, as the stronger party has more say in the shape that the business relationship is to take and ~~can~~may unilaterally impose terms that disproportionately serve its own financial interests, and the weaker party has no option other than to agree to those terms; believes that steps need to be taken to build mutual trust between supply chain partners, on the basis of the principles of freedom to contract, equivalence of benefits and freedom to take advantage of those benefits;

Amendment 203 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Points out that taking advantage of a stronger bargaining position to impose UTPs iscan be a violation of the principle of freedom to contract, as the stronger party can hasve more say in the shape that the business relationship is to take ~~and can unilaterally impose terms that disproportionately serve its own financial interests, and the weaker party has no option other than to agree to those terms~~; believes that steps need to be taken to build mutual trust between supply chain partners, on the basis of the principles of freedom to contract, equivalence of benefits and freedom to take advantage of those benefits;

Amendment 204 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Points out th~~at taking advantage of a stronger bargaining position to impose UTPs is a violation~~e need to build mutual trust between supply chain partners, on the basis of the principles of freedom to contract, as the stronger party has more say in the shape that the business relationship is to take and can unilaterally impose terms that disproportionately serve its own financial interests, and the weaker party has no option other than to agree to those terms; believes that steps need to be taken to build mutual trust between supply chain partners, on the basis of the principles of freedom to contract, equivalence of benefits and freedom to take advantage of those benefitnd a mutual beneficial relationship; underlines the corporate social responsibility of the larger contracting party to limit its advantage during negotiations and to work with the weaker party towards a solution that is positive for both parties;

Amendment 205 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. ~~Points out that taking advantage of a stronger bargaining position to impose UTPs is a violation~~Believes that steps need to be taken to build mutual trust between supply chain partners, on the basis of the principles of freedom to contract, as the stronger party has more say in the shape that the business relationship is to take and can unilaterally impose terms that disproportionately serve its own financial interests, and the weaker party has no option other than to agree to those terms; believes that steps need to be taken to build mutual trust between supply chain pa; sees freedom of contract as adamant to all actors in the supply chain; states that in face of unfair demands from one contracting party, the other party is free not to engage in a trading relation; states that unilateral retroactive changes to contracts by a stronger party is indeed a breach of contract; stresses that furtnher~~s, on the basis of the principles of freedom to contract, equivalence of benefits and freedom to take advantage of those benefi~~ attention should be given to ease the access and viability of pursuing such breaches to help the weaker parties demand their rights;

Amendment 206 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Points out that taking advantage of a stronger bargaining position to impose UTPs is a violation of the principle of freedom to contract, as the stronger party has more say in the shape that the business relationship is to take and ~~can~~may unilaterally impose terms that disproportionately serve its own financial interests, and the weaker party has no option other than to agree to those terms; believes that steps need to be taken to build mutual trust between supply chain partners, on the basis of the principles of freedom to contract, equivalence of benefits and freedom to take advantage of those benefits;

Amendment 207 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Welcomes the Commission's acknowledgement in its Green paper of 31 January 2013 that there is no true contractual freedom where there is marked inequality between parties;

Amendment 208 #

Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Andreas SCHWAB, Roberta METSOLA, Ivan ŠTEFANEC

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Points out that the regulatory framework is extremely fragmented across the EU, and that while some Member States have adopted specific measures, others have taken unsatisfactory action or none at all;

Amendment 209 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)

Da. whereas supermarkets are developing their own brands while independent brands decline, leading to a new role for supermarkets as producers' competitors;

Amendment 210 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. ~~Urges the Commission to submit specific proposals for EU legislation banning UTPs in the food supply chain that will~~Intends to carry out an in-depth examination of the Commission’s evaluation of existing national rules seeking to combat and ban UTPs in the food supply chain and learn the necessary lessons, particularly with a view to assessing whether European legislation is an appropriate tool to combat UTPs, enable markets to operate as they should and fair and transparent relations to be maintained between food producers, suppliers and distributors;

Amendment 211 #

Nicola DANTI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Urges the Commission to ~~submit specific proposals for EU legislation banning UTPs in the food supply chain that will~~assess the efficiency of voluntary, self-regulatory and regulatory schemes in addressing UTPs in the food supply chain including analysing and establishing best practices in Member States in order to enable markets to operate as they should and fair and transparent relations to be maintained between food producers, suppliers and distributors and ensure effective enforcement;

Amendment 212 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Urges the Commission to submit ~~specific proposals for EU legislation~~without delay specific legislative proposals to establish an unitary EU framework, defining general principles and respecting national realities and best practices, with the aim of banning UTPs in the entire 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 213 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Urges the Commission to submit specific proposals for EUbasic EU-level framework legislation ~~bann~~prohibiting 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 214 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. UPoints out that UTPs in the food supply chain have a knock-on effect on producer output, reduce incomes and threaten the efficiency and sustainability of the agriculture sector; urges the Commission, therefore, 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 relations to be maintained between food producers, suppliers and distributors;

Amendment 215 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. ~~Urges~~Recalls that 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 relations to be maintained between food producers, suppliers and distributors; has commissioned a study on the level of UTPs in the food supply chain; urges the Commission to present this study to the Parliament as soon as it is ready; underline that, without this study, it would be unwise to prejudge the need for specific Commission proposals; stresses that any potential proposals must be evidence-based and supported by a full impact assessment;

Amendment 216 #

Philippe JUVIN, Angélique DELAHAYE, Lara COMI, Elisabetta GARDINI, Michel DANTIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. ~~Urge~~Supports the Commission ~~to submit specific proposals for EU legislation banning UTPs in the~~ s efforts in assessing the effectiveness and credibility of available mechanisms for the enforcement of rules against UTPs in Member States; urges the Commission to take up its facilitating role drawing on best practices in Member States, like for example the UK Groceries Adjudicator, to make sure all Member States have credible and effective enforcement mechanisms against UTPs in both the food and non-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 217 #

Motion for a resolution
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

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 regulation~~s 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 219 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Points out that on the single market products containing different ingredients are being sold to customers under the same brand name and in the same packaging; calls on the Commission to decide if this is an unfair practice with negative repercussions for suppliers of local and regional produce, in particular small and medium enterprises;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D c (new)

Dc. whereas agricultural producers are vulnerable in price negotiations with supermarkets that have their own brand;

Amendment 220 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Regrets that the Commission has so far refused to make available to the European Parliament the results of its own studies on UTPs; urges the Commission to make available all material from Member States, own research and other sources that it has at its disposal now, or in the future in the context of its facilitating role as described above;

Amendment 221 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Encourages the Commission to create a binding instrument to regulate the conduct of undertakings vis-à-vis producers and consumers, e.g. by requiring changes to be made in the structure of undertakings;

Amendment 222 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Calls for the introduction at EU level of measures to prevent UTPs in the marketing of ‘private labels’ by mass retail chains;

Amendment 223 #

Motion for a resolution
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 224 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)

17b. Calls on the Commission to put in place a legal framework for dispute settlement at EU level providing all parties with a single clear problem-solving procedure;

Amendment 225 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 c (new)

17c. Proposes that Member States put in place a mediator to help boost expertise in the food supply chain;

Amendment 226 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 d (new)

17d. Asks the food sector to publish systematic reports identifying good and bad trade practices in the food supply chain;

Amendment 227 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 e (new)

17e. Calls on the Member States to impose automatic enforcement measures against UTPs in the food supply chain accompanied, where necessary, by financial penalties;

Amendment 228 #

Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Andreas SCHWAB, Roberta METSOLA, Ivan ŠTEFANEC

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

Amendment 229 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D d (new)

Dd. whereas producers sometimes work at a loss following negotiations with other actors in the food supply chain that put them at a disadvantage, e.g. through supermarket markdowns and reductions;

Amendment 230 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

Amendment 231 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Suggests that work should begin ~~on EU rules on the establishment or recognition of national public agencies~~with the facilitation at EU level of effective cooperation of national public agencies or dedicated bodies like an adjudicator, 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 232 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

Amendment 233 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. ~~Suggests that work should begin on EU rules on the establishment or recognition of national~~Recommends that the Member States establish public agencies with responsibility for enforcing laws to combat unfair practices in the food supply chain and ensuring that they have the means to carry out their tasks; takes the view that public agencies of this kind should be empowered to open and conduct investigations on their own initiative ~~and~~or 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; also stresses that these national authorities should be encouraged to coordinate among themselves and share relevant information, particularly on good practice, and expertise concerning new types of UTPs;

Amendment 234 #

Nicola DANTI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Suggests that ~~work should begin on EU rules on the~~Member States should, when not already the case, establish~~ment~~ or recogni~~tion of~~se national public agencies with responsibility for enforcing ~~laws~~action to combat unfair practices in the food supply chain; takes the view that Member States empowering 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, can facilitate enforcement;

Amendment 235 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Suggests that work should begin on EU rules on ~~the establishment or~~mutual recognition of national public agencies 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~~ex- oficio and/or on the basis of informal information and/or on the basis of complaints dealt with on a confidential basis (thus overcoming the fear factor), as well as to impose penalties;

Amendment 236 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

Amendment 237 #

Philippe JUVIN, Angélique DELAHAYE, Lara COMI, Elisabetta GARDINI, Michel DANTIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Suggests that work should begin on EU rules on the establishment or recognition of national public agencies 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; The issue of unfair trading practices in the supply chain has the been the subject of 5 European Parliament resolutions including 3 specifically on imbalances and abuses in the food supply chain, since 2009; further notes that the European Commission has produced 3 Communications, one Green paper and commissioned two Final Reports on similar subjects in the same timeframe; on this basis declares that yet more analysis on the state of UTPs in the food supply chain will merely delay the pressing need for action to help all food supply chain actors address UTPs. Therefore recommends that work should begin swiftly on a Directive based on Article 114 TFEU providing for the establishment or recognition of national public agencies with responsibility for enforcing laws to combat unfair practices in the food supply chain; takes the view that the EU should establish minimum standards for principles, including an open list of outlawed UTPs, and operational procedures regarding investigations undertaken by such agencies 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 dissuasive penalties of amounts sufficient to ensure that no enterprise can profit from imposing UTPs; Such a Directive should also provide for a single European market coordination forum to enable national enforcement bodies to provide advice, facilitate exchange of good practice and information, cooperate on cross border cases, analyse new forms of UTPs and where appropriate, cooperate in setting and imposing penalties in cases involving operators from more than one Member State. Such public agencies should be sufficiently staffed and funded, and also coordinate with relevant enforcement bodies in Member States and in third countries;

Amendment 238 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Suggests that work should begin onat EU ~~rules on the establishment or recognition of national public agencies~~level, 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

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 ~~and~~or on the basis of informal information ~~and~~or complaints dealt with on a confidential basis (thus overcoming the fear factor), as well as to impose penalties;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas UTPs occur where there is a lack of economic balance in trading relations between partners in the food supply chain, resulting from bargaining power disparities in business relations and constituting a serious disturbance to ~~market balance~~the proper functioning of the market;

Amendment 240 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. These sanctions should be dissuasive and proportionate to the financial and commercial damage done to actors in the food supply chain;

Amendment 241 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Believes strongly that a ~~single~~uniform, clear, precise and binding definition of UTPs should be drawn up, so as to allow effective rules to be laid down with a view to combating such practices; this definition should not confine itself to the terms of the contract but should cover all stages of the commercial relationship; at any event it should take account of the fear factor;

Amendment 242 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Believes strongly that a ~~single, clear, precise and binding~~generally accepted and clear definition of UTPs should be drawn up, so as to allow effective ~~rules~~action to be ~~laid dow~~taken with a view to combating such practices; notes however that this definition can never be exhaustive, as unfair practices can take new forms over time;

Amendment 243 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. ~~Believes strongly that a single, clear, precise and binding definition of UTPs s~~Acknowledges and supports the principles of good practices in the vertical relationships called for in the European Parliament Report on a more fair and efficient retail market which was agreed on by all relevant stakehould ~~be drawn up, so as to allow effective rules to be laid dow~~ers and includes clear and precise definitions of UTPs so as to allow proper action to be taken with a view to combating such practices;

Amendment 244 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Believes strongly that a single, clear, precise and binding definition of UTPs should be drawn up~~, so as to allow effective rules to be laid down with a view to combating such practices~~;

Amendment 245 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Believes ~~strongly~~ that a single~~, clear, precise and binding~~ definition of UTPs should be drawn up, so as to allow effective rules to be laid down with a view to combating such practices;

Amendment 246 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Believes strongly that a single, clear, precise and binding definition of UTPs should be drawn up, so as to allow effective rules to be laid down with a view to combating such practices, and supports the uniform application of legislation in the field of unfair competition in all the EU Member States;

Amendment 247 #

Philippe JUVIN, Angélique DELAHAYE, Lara COMI, Elisabetta GARDINI, Michel DANTIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Believes ~~strongly that a single, clear, precise and binding definition of UTPs should be drawn up, so as to allow effective rules to be laid down with a view to combating such practices~~that a more clear definition of UTPs should be drawn up;

Amendment 248 #

Motion for a resolution
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 249 #

Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Roberta METSOLA, Ivan ŠTEFANEC

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. ~~Believes strongly that a single, clear, precise and binding definition of UTPs s~~Acknowledges and supports the principles of good practises in the vertical relationships called for in the European Parliament report on a more fair and efficient retail market which was agreed on by all relevant stakehould ~~be drawn up, so as to allow effective rules to be laid dow~~ers and includes clear and precise definitions of UTPs so as to allow proper action to be taken with a view to combating such practices;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas UTPs occur where there ~~is a lack of economic balance~~are inequalities in trading relations between partners in the food supply chain, resulting from bargaining power disparities in business relations ~~and constituting a serious disturbance to market balance~~, which are the result of the growing concentration of market power among a small number of multinational groups, and whereas these disparities tend to harm small and medium-sized producers;

Amendment 250 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

Amendment 251 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Calls for due account to be taken, win then drafting of any 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~~any regulatory efforts in this area 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;

Amendment 252 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Calls for due account to be taken, when ~~draft~~considering 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;

Amendment 253 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

Amendment 254 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Calls for due account to be taken, when drafting ~~rul~~measures 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;

Amendment 255 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

Amendment 256 #

Motion for a resolution
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 discreti~~underlines that it would be wrong 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 agencie~~adopt a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to UTPs;

Amendment 257 #

Philippe JUVIN, Angélique DELAHAYE, Lara COMI, Elisabetta GARDINI, Michel DANTIN

Motion for a resolution
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;

Amendment 258 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

Amendment 259 #

Motion for a resolution
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 26 #

Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Roberta METSOLA, Ivan ŠTEFANEC

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas UTPs occur where there is a lack of economic balance in trading relations between partners in the food supply chain, resulting from bargaining power and income disparities in business relations and constituting a serious disturbance to market balance;

Amendment 260 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Calls for due account to be taken, when drafting ~~rul~~measures 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~~bodies and the national platforms of the Supply Chain Initiative;

Amendment 261 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Recognises that self regulation, EU and Member State legislation as well as independent adjudicators and dispute resolution entities can all co-exist and work together to end UTPs in the food supply chain;

Amendment 262 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

Amendment 263 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

Amendment 264 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls on the Commission to assess the voluntary and self-regulatory schemes put in place to date (particularly as regards the number and proportion of the problem cases between different actors in the food supply chain resolved by this route) and the effectiveness of the regulatory action taken at national and EU level; expects to be notified of the results of this assessment; 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 265 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls on the Commission to assess the voluntary and self-regulatory schemes put in place to date and the effectiveness of the regulatory action taken at national and EU level; calls for a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the problems raised and resolved between the various operators in the food chain; 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 266 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls on the Commission to assess the voluntary and self-regulatory schemes put in place to date and 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 welfareSupports the Supply Chain Initiative and other national schemes; welcomes the commits given by all parties to prevent UTPs within the supply chain; calls for a review of such schemes in order to highlight best practices and better cooperation between the different supply chain parties;

Amendment 267 #

Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Andreas SCHWAB, Roberta METSOLA, Ivan ŠTEFANEC

Motion for a resolution
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 268 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. ~~Calls on~~Supports the Commission ~~to assess~~s ongoing assessment of the voluntary and self- regulatory schemes put in place to date and 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 welfareon the Commission to speed up its process and put a deadline by January 2016;

Amendment 269 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Is convinced that consumer awareness is fundamental to address the problems resulting from imbalances in the food supply chain, including UTPs; calls on all stakeholders involved in food supply chain management to step up transparency in the overall food supply chain, increase consumer information by more adequate product labelling and certification schemes in order to enable consumers to make fully informed choices about available products and to act accordingly;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas UTPs can occur where there is a lack of economic balance in trading relations between partners in the food supply chain, resulting from bargaining power disparities in business relations and constituting, a ~~serious disturbance to market balance~~lmost all trade relations, also between entities of different sizes, are carried out in mutual respect;

Amendment 270 #

Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Andreas SCHWAB, Roberta METSOLA, Ivan ŠTEFANEC

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Hopes that the proposed regulations will help guarantee sustainable, fair commercial relationships and a level playing field for market operators in the food supply chain;

Amendment 271 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Calls on the Commission to come up with concrete proposals on a way forward based on their assessment of the voluntary and self-regulatory schemes;

Amendment 272 #

Lara COMI, Elisabetta GARDINI, Angélique DELAHAYE, Michel DANTIN, Philippe JUVIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Stresses that the phenomenon of ‘private labels’ is a medium-term strategic issue. Stresses that, in recent years, various economists have pointed to the existence of a ‘risk threshold’ above which market penetration by private labels, in a given product category, ceases to have positive effects and begins to have negative ones, both in terms of the competitiveness of the agri-food industry and for consumers and society as a whole.

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas UTPs occur where there is a lack of economic balance in trading relations between ~~partners in the food supply chain, resulting from~~food supply chain actors such as farmers and suppliers on one hand, and manufacturers, processors and retailers on the other hand, lead to bargaining power disparities in business relations and constituting a serious disturbance to market balance;

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas the market in various countries is increasingly being dominated by large distribution chains which, with their respective own brands, in themselves pose a problem in terms of the imposition of low prices and the lack of outlets for products in a number of countries;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 a (new)

- having regard to the 2012 report entitled ‘The relationship between supermarkets and suppliers; what are the implications for consumers?’ by Consumers International,

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas unfair practices ~~may~~ have harmful consequences for the food supply chain, which in turn ~~may~~ have a detrimental impact on the entire EU economy, on consumers and on the economic interests of states; whereas UTPs may discourage cross- border trade in the EU and hinder the proper functioning of the internal market; whereas unfair practices can result in particular in enterprises cutting back on investment and innovation, particularly in the field of the environment, working conditions or animal welfare, owing to a reduction in income and a lack of certainty, and may lead them to abandon production, processing or trading activities;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas unfair practices may have harmful consequences for the food supply chain, which in turn may have a detrimental impact on the entire EU economy and consumers by limiting consumers' choice of products and their access to new and innovative products; whereas UTPs may discourage cross- border trade in the EU and hinder the proper functioning of the internal market; whereas unfair practices can result in particular in enterprises cutting back on investment and innovation owing to a reduction in income and a lack of certainty, and may lead them to abandon production, processing or trading activities;

Amendment 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas unfair practices ~~may~~ have harmful consequences for the food supply chain, ~~which~~particularly where farmers and SMEs are concerned, and whereas that in turn ~~may have~~has a detrimental impact on the entire EU economy; whereas UTPs may discourage cross-border trade in the EU and whereas they hinder the proper functioning of the internal market; whereas unfair practices can result in particular in enterprises cutting back on investment and innovation owing to a reduction in income and a lack of certainty, and may lead them to abandon production, processing or trading activities;

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas unfair practices ~~may~~ have harmful consequences for the food supply chain, which in turn ~~may have a detrimental impact on~~will adversely affect the entire EU economy; whereas UTPs may discourage cross-border trade in the EU and hinder the proper functioning of the int~~ernal~~ra-Community market; whereas unfair practices can result in particular in enterprises cutting back on investment and innovation owing to a reduction in income and a lack of certainty, and may lead them to abandon production, processing or trading activities;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas unfair practices may have harmful consequences for the food supply chain, which in turn may have a detrimental impact on the entire EU economy; whereas UTPs may discourage cross-border trade in the EU and hinder the proper functioning of the internal marketindividual actors in the food supply chain; whereas unfair practices can result in particular in individual enterprises cutting back on investment and innovation owing to a reduction in income and a lack of certainty, and may lead them to abandon production, processing or trading activities;

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas unfair practices may have harmful consequences for the food supply chain, which in turn ~~may have~~has a detrimental impact on the entire EU economy; whereas UTPs ~~may~~ discourage cross-border trade in the EU and hinder the proper functioning of the internal market; whereas unfair practices can result in particular in enterprises cutting back on investment and innovation owing to a reduction in income and a lack of certainty, and may lead them to abandon production, processing or trading activities;

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

Fa. whereas unfair practices may have an impact on price negotiations between enterprises and on consumers' welfare when it comes to pricing;

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

Fa. whereas the performance of the food supply chain not only affects economic sectors such as agriculture and the processing and retail industries, but also the standard of living of consumers in the EU;

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

Fa. whereas the effects of these UTPs also have harmful effects on the consumer, particularly by driving up the prices of independent brands, reducing choice and creating deliberate confusion on prices through advertising methods; whereas there may be overall reductions in service, price, quality and range (SPQR) to the detriment of the consumer;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas UTPs are an obstacle to the development and functioning of the internal market and seriously disrupt ~~market mechanisms~~the proper functioning of the market;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas UTPs arcan be an obstacle to the development and functioning of the internal market and seriously disrupt market mechanisms;

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas UTPs are an obstacle to the development and functioning of the internal market, act as a brake on the competitive environment, which directly affects the interests of consumers, and seriously disrupt market mechanisms;

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas UTPs are an obstacle to the development and smooth functioning of the internal market and seriously disrupt market mechanisms;

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)

Ga. whereas the effects of UTPs can result in excessive costs or lower-than- expected revenues for businesses with weaker bargaining power, as well as overproduction and food waste;

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)

Ga. whereas such squeezes on suppliers have negative knock-on effects on both quality of employment and environmental protection;

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G b (new)

Gb. whereas consumers potentially face a loss in product diversity, cultural heritage and retail outlets as a result of UTPs;

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas SMEs and microenterprises are particularly vulnerable to UTPs and are more affected than large enterprises by their impact of UTPs, which make it harder for them to survive on the market, undertake new investments and innovate, particularly in the field of the environment, working conditions and animal welfare, and make it more difficult for SMEs to expand their activities, including across borders within the single market;

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas SMEs and microenterprises, which make up over 90% of the EU’s economic fabric, are particularly vulnerable to UTPs and are more affected than large enterprises by their impact of UTPs, which make it harder for them to survive on the market, undertake new investments and innovate, and make it more difficult for SMEs to expand their activities, including across borders within the single market;

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas SMEs and microenterprises are particularly vulnerable to UTPs and arcan often be more affected than large enterprises by their impact of UTPs, which make it harder for them to survive on the market, undertake new investments and innovate, and make it more difficult for SMEs to expand their activities, including across borders within the single market;

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas SMEs and microenterprises are particularly vulnerable to UTPs and are mworest affected ~~than large enter~~by the impact of UTPs; whereas, by failing to guarantee fair prisces ~~by their impact of UTPs, which~~for production, these practices make it harder for ~~them~~SMEs to survive on the market, undertake new investments ~~and~~, innovate, and ~~make it more difficult for SMEs to expand their activities, including across borders within the single market~~expand their activities, at both national and international level;

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas unfair trading practices (UTPs) are a ~~problem~~serious problem, occurring in many sectors of the economy; whereas that problem is particularly evident in the food supply chain, and is attested to by all entities in the food supply chain and by many national competition authorities; whereas the Commission and Parliament have repeatedly drawn attention to the problem of UTPs;

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)

Ha. whereas unfair trading practices do not only take place in the food supply chain, but just as often in the non-food supply chain like the garment industry or the automotive industry;

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas many Member States have introduced various ways of countering UTPs, in some cases by means of voluntary and self-regulatory schemes and in others through relevant national regulations; whereas this has led to a high degree of divergence and diversification between countries in terms of the level, nature and form of legal protection; whereas some countries have not taken any action in this area;

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)

Ia. whereas there is a practice known as ‘forum shopping’, whereby the stronger contractual party unilaterally decides in which Member State – i.e. under which regulatory framework – the contract will apply in order to avoid stricter measures against UTPs;

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)

Ia. whereas some Member States that had initially chosen to counter UTPs by means of voluntary schemes have subsequently decided to address them through legislation;

Amendment 54 #

Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS, Nicola DANTI

Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)

Ia. Is nevertheless in favour of a regulatory framework being set up at EU level to ensure the smooth operation of the EU’s internal market;

Amendment 55 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I b (new)

Ib. whereas the various steps taken by the Member States may cause distortions in the internal market if there are no EU- level measures to prevent such problems;

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas UTPs are covered only in part by competition law, which is becoming obsolete and the provisions of which relate to only a few UTPs in the B2B food supply chain;

Amendment 57 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas UTPs are covered only in part by competition law, ~~the provisions of which~~in part because competition focuses primarily on needs of consumers, therefore provisions of competition law relate to only a few UTPs in the B2B food supply chain;

Amendment 58 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas UTPs are covered only in part by competition law~~, the provisions of which relate to only a few UTPs in the B2B food supply chain~~;

Amendment 59 #

Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS, Nicola DANTI

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas UTPs are covered only in part by competition law, the provisions of which relate to only a few UTPs in the B2B food supply chain; whereas a significant majority of UTPs therefore lie beyond the scope of competition law because it essentially serves another purpose, i.e. to regulate competition on the market;

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas UTPs have adverse effects on the weakest link in the chain, farmers and SMEs; whereas the economic impact of those adverse effects is thought to run into billions of euros;

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas UTPs are covered ~~only in part by competition law, the provis~~at different levels and in different forms in national contract regulations and the questions of ~~which relate to only a few UTPs~~balance of power ins t~~he B2B food supply chain~~ackled by competition law;

Amendment 61 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)

Ja. whereas European competition law should permit consumers to benefit from a wide range of quality products at competitive prices, while ensuring that undertakings have an incentive to invest and innovate by giving them a fair chance to promote the advantages of their products without being unduly forced out of the market by UTPs;

Amendment 62 #

Philippe JUVIN, Angélique DELAHAYE, Andreas SCHWAB, Lara COMI, Elisabetta GARDINI, Michel DANTIN

Motion for a resolution
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 63 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital K

K. whereas the ‘fear factor' caoften comes into play in commercial relationships, with the weaker party being unwilling to lodge a complaint about UTPs imposed by the stronger party, out of concern that this would put an end to their commercial relationship;

Amendment 64 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital K

Amendment 65 #

Biljana BORZAN

Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)

Ka. whereas the performance of the food supply chain affects EU citizens' daily lives, given that approximately 14% of their household expenditure is spent on food;

Amendment 66 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)

Ka. whereas many actors operate in the food supply chain, including manufacturers, retailers, intermediaries and producers, and UTPs may occur at different levels of the chain;

Amendment 67 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)

Ka. whereas the 'fear factor' means that small suppliers will not be able to effectively use their right, if created, to go to court, and that other, cheap and accessible mechanisms such as mediation by an independent adjudicator will better serve their interests;

Amendment 68 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)

Ka. whereas the registry of the Supply Chain Initiative currently has 1061 operating companies listed and covers a significant part of the food industrial sector;

Amendment 69 #

Michel DANTIN, Angélique DELAHAYE, Philippe JUVIN, Elisabetta GARDINI, Lara COMI

Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)

Ka. whereas the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility is important to achieving a sustainable economy and meeting the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy;

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
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 70 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)

Ka. whereas the Supply Chain Initiative has major limitations – e.g. there are no penalties for non-compliance and there is no option of lodging confidential complaints – meaning that it cannot be used effectively as a tool to combat UTPs;

Amendment 71 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital K b (new)

Kb. whereas the Supply Chain Initiative does not include a precise definition of ‘unfair trading practice’;

Amendment 72 #

Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS, Nicola DANTI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the steps taken to date by the Commission to combat UTPs with a view to securing a more balanced market but believes that this could go further;

Amendment 73 #

Nicola DANTI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the steps taken to date by the Commission to combat UTPs with a view to securing a more balanced market and to overcome the current fragmented situation stemming from different national legislations and voluntary codes addressing UTPs in the EU;

Amendment 74 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcomes the steps taken to date by the Commission~~Points out that the action the Commission has taken thus far is not sufficient to combat UTPs with a view to securing a more balanced market;

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcom~~Notes the steps taken to date by the Commission to combat UTPs with a view to securing a more balanced market;

Amendment 76 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcomes the steps taken to date by the Commission to combat UTPs with a view to securing a more balanced~~Calls for a framework to be created to regulate the market in relation to both production and marketing at EU level, which should provide a response to the problems faced by small and medium- sized producers, putting forward measures to protect producers in each country, in particular by guaranteeing fair prices for production and offering protection for national markets in the face of foreign products entering the market;

Amendment 77 #

Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS, Nicola DANTI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Is in favour of establishing the principle of ‘national preference’ which each Member State will be able to use in relation to imports from EU countries and third countries, by creating a system of mandatory marketing quotas for domestic production;

Amendment 78 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Points out that although there is already European legislation designed to prevent unfair business-to-consumer (B2C) commercial practices (Directive 2005/29/EC), that legislation is not sufficient to address unfair practices in the food supply chain; in that regard, calls on the Commission to draw up a directive that makes it possible to put an end to UTPs in business-to-business (B2B) relations;

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Calls for the reversal of policies designed to deregulate and liberalise world trade and is in favour of trade policies being drawn up in accordance with each country’s interests, specific characteristics and needs, geared to complementarity rather than competition (between products, producers and countries);

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. having regard to the size and strategic importance of the food supply chain for the European Union; whereas the sector employs over 47 million people in the EU, and whereas the total value of the EU market for products connected with the retail food trade is estimated at EUR 1.05 billion; whereas 99.1% of undertakings in the food and drink sector are SMEs and microenterprises;

Amendment 80 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1c. Advocates the introduction of a system of ‘maximum operating margins’ to enable added value to be distributed fairly and properly along the food supply chain – whenever serious imbalances are found to exist, and with a view to improving producer prices, Member States may bring forms of intervention to bear on the chain, for instance by setting maximum operating margins for each agent in the chain;

Amendment 81 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes the ~~action taken~~principles of good practice for vertical relationships in the food supply chain action adopted by the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning of the Food Supply Chain ~~and~~; the se~~tting up of the expert platform on B2B practices, which has drawn up a list, a description and an assessment of trading practices that may be regarded as grossly unfair~~ principles also provide examples of fair and unfair practices;

Amendment 82 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Welcomes~~Acknowledges as a first step the action taken by the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning ~~of the~~ Food Supply Chain and the setting up of the expert platform on B2B practices, which has drawn up a list, a description and an assessment of trading practices that may be regarded as grossly unfair, but takes the view that a clear definition of ‘unfair trading practice’ should have been established;

Amendment 83 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

Amendment 84 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Regrets, however, that the solutions proposed by the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning of the Food Supply Chain are insufficient to resolve the recurring and unacceptable problem of UTPs;

Amendment 85 #

Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS, Nicola DANTI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Welcom~~Acknowledges the setting up of the Supply Chain Initiative, which has ~~resulted in the adoption of a set of~~set up a voluntary framework for the implementation of the principles of good practice ~~in B2B~~for vertical relationships 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~~n impact but will not be enough to curb them;

Amendment 86 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. WCautiously 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~~should make an impact, although the serious shortcomings of the initiative – such as the fact that it is not possible to lodge confidential complaints, and the fact that there are no effective penalties – mean that it is utterly inadequate for the purpose of combating UTPs;

Amendment 87 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Welcomes the setting up~~Reserves judgement – pending the provision of detailed statistics by the Commission – on the effectiveness 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;~~

Amendment 88 #

Motion for a resolution
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; nevertheless notes that groups representing farmers have chosen not to participate because there is no enforcement mechanism nor mechanism for confidential complaints;

Amendment 89 #

Motion for a resolution
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; recommends the setting up of similar supply chain initiatives in other relevant non-food sectors;

Amendment 9 #

Michel DANTIN, Angélique DELAHAYE, Philippe JUVIN, Elisabetta GARDINI, Lara COMI

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. having regard to the size and strategic importance of the food supply chain for the European Union; whereas the sector employs over 47 million people in the EU and accounts for around 7% of gross value added at EU level, and whereas the total value of the EU market for products connected with the retail food trade is estimated at EUR 1.05 billion; whereas the retail services sector accounts for 4.3% of the EU’s GDP and 17% of the EU’s SMEs2a; __________________ 2a Eurostat, 2010.

Amendment 90 #

Motion for a resolution
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 91 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Welcomes the progress that has been achieved by the Supply Chain Initiative, with a growing number of companies joining the initiative, and acknowledges that where implemented it has been an effective tool to combat UTPs;

Amendment 92 #

Motion for a resolution
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; stresses that such lists are an essential precondition for the implementation of binding legislation; shares the view that these standards now need to be enforced;

Amendment 93 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Welcomes~~Takes the view that 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~~ ought to be extended and enforced in an effective manner;

Amendment 94 #

Philippe JUVIN, Angélique DELAHAYE, Elisabetta GARDINI, Michel DANTIN, Lara COMI

Motion for a resolution
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~~, however, that the voluntary nature of these practices means they do not provide a sufficiently effective solution;

Amendment 95 #

Motion for a resolution
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 96 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the setting up of national platforms of organisations and businesses in the food supply chain to encourage dialogue between the parties, promote fair trading practices and seek to put an end to UTPs;

Amendment 97 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the setting up of national platforms of organisations and businesses in the food and non-food supply chain to promote fair trading practices and seek to put an end to UTPs;

Amendment 98 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the setting -up of national platforms of organisations and businesses in the food supply chain to promote the introduction and exchange of fair trading practices and to seek to put an end to UTPs; proposes that Member States be encouraged and given incentives to take further action, using suitable instruments, on any complaints or non-conformities reported by these national platforms;

Amendment 99 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. WCautiously welcomes 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; points out that specific EU regulation needs to be brought in alongside those platforms;

source: 567.733

2015/09/23 AGRI 195 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Esther HERRANZ GARCÍA, Pilar AYUSO, Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO

Draft opinion
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 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that CAP reform introduced measures aimed at addressing the bargaining power gap between farmers and other stakeholders in the food supply chain, but brought in no specific measures to combat unfair trade practices;

Amendment 100 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Questions the Commission’s unwavering support for the SCI, given the reluctance of ~~farm~~primary producers to participate; regrets the pre- emptive conclusion that regulatory action at EU level is not foreseen;

Amendment 101 #

Angélique DELAHAYE, Michel DANTIN, Alberto CIRIO, Esther HERRANZ GARCÍA, Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO, Pilar AYUSO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Question~~Regrets the Commission’s unwavering support for the SCI, ~~given~~disregarding the reluctance of farmers to participate and the huge impact of UTPs in the agri-food sector; regrets the pre-emptive conclusion that regulatory action at EU level is not foreseen;

Amendment 102 #

Draft opinion
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 103 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Takes the view that strengthening and establishing producer organisations must go hand in hand with strengthening farmers' bargaining power in the food chain;

Amendment 104 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Believes that European competition law should be applied in a more balanced fashion to the various actors in the food supply chain, that the policy should take account of the specific features of agriculture and that it should be applied in a more harmonised manner in all Member States;

Amendment 105 #

Viorica DĂNCILĂ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Notes that a number of Member States have recognised the harm that might be caused by unfair trading practices; urges the Member States to ensure that they are in a position to not only take appropriate measures in response to unfair trading practices, taking into account their national circumstances, but also build on and complement self-regulatory initiatives thanks to a set of effective and consistent regulatory framework provisions;

Amendment 106 #

Paolo DE CASTRO, Michela GIUFFRIDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Calls on the Commission to assess the voluntary schemes currently in place and the effectiveness of regulatory actions taken at national level;

Amendment 107 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Acknowledges that voluntary and self- regulatory schemes are not enough to put an end to UTPs and that while purely voluntary codes are very important and useful for identifying issues 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 108 #

Mairead McGUINNESS, Richard ASHWORTH, Paolo DE CASTRO, James NICHOLSON, Albert DESS, Marijana PETIR, Michel DANTIN, Angélique DELAHAYE, Herbert DORFMANN, Paul BRANNEN

Draft opinion
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 109 #

Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Stefan ECK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that CAP reform introduced measures aimed at addressing the bargaining power gap between farmers and other stakeholders in the food supply chain, urges the commission to prioritize these initiatives;

Amendment 110 #

Jean-Paul DENANOT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 111 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 112 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 113 #

Paul BRANNEN, Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, Maria NOICHL, Marc TARABELLA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 114 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 115 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 116 #

Miguel VIEGAS, Anja HAZEKAMP, Stefan ECK, Matt CARTHY, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Ángela VALLINA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 117 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that ~~several Member States have initiated actions in national law to address the concerns of primary producers regarding the negative impact of UTPs~~the regulatory framework is currently extremely fragmented across the EU, and that while some Member States have taken unsatisfactory action or none at all, others have initiated actions in national law 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; 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 a potential model for adaptation at EU level;

Amendment 118 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that several Member States have initiated actions in national law 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 a potential model for adapta~~believes that competition law under Article 101 of TFEU, is unsuitable as a vehicle for resolving unfair trading practices due to the single-minded focus of enforcement authorities on the interest of consumers at the expense of those higher up the food supply chain, and due to exemptions from competition requirements in clause 3 as long as they lead to lower prices for consumers; believes also that antitrust law under Article 102 is also inadequate for this purpose as the technical requirements for a "dominant position" a~~t EU level;~~re rarely met, although retailers may in practice hold a dominant position in a specific market situation.

Amendment 119 #

Esther HERRANZ GARCÍA, Pilar AYUSO, Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO

Draft opinion
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 12 #

Viorica DĂNCILĂ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that CAP reform introduced measures aimed at addressing the bargaining power gap between farmers and other stakeholders in the food supply chain; notes that the very different levels of bargaining power in the food supply chain create imbalances that in some cases may lead to unfair trading practices;

Amendment 120 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 121 #

Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Pascal ARIMONT, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Notes~~Welcomes the fact that several Member States have initiated actions in national law 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 a potential model for adaptation at EU level;

Amendment 122 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 123 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that several Member States have initiated actions in national law to address the concerns of primary producers regarding the negative impact of UTPs; calls on the Member States to introduce the necessary measures to implement UTP rules where they do not yet exist; 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 a potential model for adaptation at EU level;

Amendment 124 #

Miguel VIEGAS, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Ángela VALLINA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 125 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that several Member States have initiated actions in ~~national~~ law to address the concerns of primary producers regarding the negative impact of UTPs; asks the Commission to assess these ~~national effort~~efforts undertaken by states with a view to selecting best practices for application at EU level; ~~notes in particular the Groceries Code Adjudicator in the UK as a potential model for adaptation at EU level;~~

Amendment 126 #

Ulrike MÜLLER, Jan HUITEMA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that several Member States have initiated actions in national law to address the concerns of primary producers regarding the negative impact of UTPs; welcomes the Commission's report on the efficiency of existing national legislation and measures; 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 a potential model for adaptation at EU level;~~

Amendment 127 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 128 #

James NICHOLSON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 129 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that several Member States have initiated actions in national law to address the concerns of primary producers regarding the negative impact of UTPs, producing extremely interesting results, one example being Portugal; 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 a potential model for adaptation at EU level, with strengthened powers of independent investigation;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that CAP reform introduced measures aimed at addressing the bargaining power gap between farmers and other stakeholders in the food supply chain, which are, however, insufficient;

Amendment 130 #

Mairead McGUINNESS, Paolo DE CASTRO, James NICHOLSON, Albert DESS, Marijana PETIR, Michel DANTIN, Angélique DELAHAYE, Herbert DORFMANN, Paul BRANNEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that several Member States have ~~initiated actions in national law~~voluntary 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 131 #

Luke Ming FLANAGAN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls on the Commission to examine the success of the micro-brewery sector in Ireland where tax incentives were given to small operations which has allowed them to compete with multinationals, which mitigates against runaway consolidation in the processing sector. Asks the commission to assess if this template could be applied to other sectors across the EU;

Amendment 132 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Notes in particular the UK Groceries Code, which imposes on retailers the principle of fair dealing with suppliers, supported by an independent Adjudicator with powers of enforcement and tools such as "naming and shaming," as a potential model for best practice and adaptation by other Member States;

Amendment 133 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Stresses that enforcement powers implemented at national level must be proportionate and factor in the impact on the market and on consumer interests;

Amendment 134 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls on the Commission and Member States to facilitate and encourage producers to join producer organisations and associations of producer organisations in order to raise their bargaining power and position in the food supply chain;

Amendment 135 #

Draft opinion
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 136 #

Daniel BUDA, Mihai ŢURCANU, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Viorica DĂNCILĂ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Stresses the importance of coordination and exchange of best practice at EU level, in order to ensure a successful approach to tackling the serious issue of UTPs and the proper functioning of the single market whilst ensuring a completive and fair supply chain;

Amendment 137 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Notes that UTPs may have a damaging effect on cross-border trade in foodstuffs and impede the functioning of the single market;

Amendment 138 #

James NICHOLSON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Believes that a common understanding of UTPs would be beneficial, and calls on the Commission to develop a coherent approach, based on exchange of best practice, to tackle UTPs and ensure the effective functioning of the single market, with a particular focus on practices such as using dairy as a "loss leader" and selling below the cost of production;

Amendment 139 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Calls on Member States to enforce the measures taken in their national legislation;

Amendment 14 #

Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Matt CARTHY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that CAP reform introduced measures aimed at addressing the bargaining power gap between farmers and other stakeholders in the food supply chain; but the current crisis facing agriculture shows the measures do not go far enough;

Amendment 140 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Calls on the Commission to examine Australian competition law which inserts powers to allow for collective bargaining where there is a serious imbalance in market power between two or more levels of the supply chain that is likely to have an adverse effect on the public interest;

Amendment 141 #

Luke Ming FLANAGAN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5c. Points out that UTP can occur at all stages of the supply chain. Urges the commission therefore, to examine both the processing and the retail sectors to ensure that there is adequate genuine competition in these areas. Asks the Commission to examine competition law with a view (as in other sectors) to limit the market share that a retailer can control;

Amendment 142 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

~~6. Believes that framework legislation at EU level is essential to tackle UTPs and to address their negative consequences for farmers; urges the Commission to consider this when assessing the SCI;~~deleted

Amendment 143 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that framework legislation at EU level is essential to tackle UTPs and to address their negative consequences for farmers (lower profits and higher-than- estimated costs, food over-production and wastage, financial planning difficulties); urges the Commission to consider this when assessing the SCI;

Amendment 144 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that framework legislation at EU level is essential to tackle UTPs and to address their negative consequences for farmers while giving European farmers and consumers an opportunity to benefit from fair selling and buying conditions; urges the Commission to consider this when assessing the SCI;

Amendment 145 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that ~~framework legislation at EU level is essential~~it is vital to combat social dumping between Member States and to reform the single CMO with a view to establishing regulatory and production measures in order to tackle UTPs and to address their negative consequences for farmers; urges the Commission to consider this when assessing the SCI;

Amendment 146 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that framework legislation at the EU level is essential to tackle UTPs and to address their negative consequences for farmers; points out that due to the existence of cross-border agro-food enterprises and supply chains, coordination of regulatory action at EU level is vital to avoid regulatory arbitrage and loopholes which retailers can use to avoid enforcement, and to ensure a level playing field within the single market; calls for framework legislation to protect all food suppliers, wherever they are located, including in third countries; urges the Commission to consider this when assessing the SCI;

Amendment 147 #

Paul BRANNEN, Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, Maria NOICHL, Marc TARABELLA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that framework legislation at EU level is essential to tackle UTPs and to address their negative consequences for farmers and weaker businesses in the supply chain wherever they are located; urges the Commission to consider this ~~when assessing the SCI~~;

Amendment 148 #

Angélique DELAHAYE, Michel DANTIN, Herbert DORFMANN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that framework legislation at EU level is essential to tackle UTPs and to address their negative consequences for farmers; urges the Commission to consider this when assessing the SCI; points out that that European legislation must not lower the level of protection in countries which have already adopted national legislation to combat business-to-business UTPs;

Amendment 149 #

Miguel VIEGAS, Anja HAZEKAMP, Stefan ECK, Matt CARTHY, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Ángela VALLINA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that framework legislation at EU level ~~is essential~~may help to tackle UTPs and to address their negative consequences for farmers, given that it has an impact on specific issues such as pricing policies and payment deadlines and reflects the social and economic situation in each Member State; urges the Commission to consider this when assessing the SCI;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
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 150 #

Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Matt CARTHY, Stefan ECK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that framework legislation at EU level is ~~essential~~necessary to tackle UTPs and to address their negative consequences for farmers; urges the Commission to consider this an essential part of a long term solution when assessing the SCI;

Amendment 151 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that rapidly-enacted framework legislation at EU level is essential to tackle UTPs and to address their negative consequences for farmers; urges the Commission to consider this when assessing the SCI;

Amendment 152 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that framework legislation at EU level is essential to tackle UTPs and to address their negative consequences for farmers; ~~urges~~calls on the Commission to ~~consider this when assessing the SCI~~submit its proposal for EU framework legislation to the EU’s legislative institutions as soon as possible;

Amendment 153 #

Viorica DĂNCILĂ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that framework legislation at EU level is essential to tackle UTPs and to address their negative consequences for farmers; urges the Commission to consider this when assessing the SCI; considers that it would be beneficial to tackle UTPs effectively throughout the EU, particularly across borders, through reaching agreement on the rules applicable;

Amendment 154 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that measures to combat social dumping between Member States and framework legislation at EU level isare essential to tackle UTPs and to address their negative consequences for farmers;; urges the Commission to consider this when assessing the SCI;

Amendment 155 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that framework legislation at EU level is essential to tackle UTPs and to address their negative consequences for farmers; urges the Commission to consider this when assessing the SCI; urges the Commission to draw up an open list of UTPs that are prohibited at EU level;

Amendment 156 #

Ulrike MÜLLER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that a common framework ~~legislation~~ at EU level is essential to tackle UTPs and to address their negative consequences for farmers; ~~urges~~calls on the Commission to ~~consider this when assessing the SCI;~~ review the existing legislation at EU level in order to avoid UTPs and, only if this is not feasible, to make a proposal for a common European legislative framework;

Amendment 157 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Believes that framework legislation at EU level is es~~Asks the Commission to assess the occurrences of retail price sentti~~al to tackle UTPs and to address their negative consequences for farmers;~~ ng below cost of production and consider what action and resourgces ~~the Commission to consider this when assessing~~are needed to eliminate this practice across the ~~SCI~~EU;

Amendment 158 #

Miguel VIEGAS, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Ángela VALLINA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Believ~~Notes that framework legislation at EU level ~~is essential~~, which ensures consistency of approach across the Member States, would be an option to tackle UTPs and to address their negative consequences for farmers; urges the Commission to consider this when assessing the SCI;

Amendment 159 #

Sandra KALNIETE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that framework legislation at EU level is essential to tackle UTPs and to address their negative consequences for farmers; urges the Commission to ~~consider this when assessing the SCI~~submit specific legislative proposals;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that ~~CAP reform introduced measures~~the measures introduced with the CAP reform, aimed at addressing the bargaining power gap between farmers and other stakeholders in the food supply chain have been a total failure; doubts, however, that the true objective of the measures was to strengthen the bargaining power of the production sector;

Amendment 160 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that framework legislation at EU level is essential to tackle UTPs and to address their negative consequences for ~~farm~~primary producers; urges the Commission to consider this when assessing the SCI; stresses in this connection the importance of establishing a single clear European definition of unfair trading practices;

Amendment 161 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – point a (new)

(a) Therefore, calls for an EU framework directive, based on Articles 114 or 116 of TFEU on the internal market, to coordinate the establishment of enforcement bodies and mechanisms in all Member States on UTPs in the food supply chain, linked together by an EU coordination body to provide advice, set standards, cooperate on cross border cases, exchange best practice and to ensure a minimum level of protection across Member States through a common list of outlawed UTPs; procedures in enforcement bodies must enable suppliers to complain confidentially to avoid the "fear factor" and must allow enforcement bodies to start investigations on their own initiative; such public agencies should be sufficiently staffed and funded, and also coordinate with relevant enforcement bodies in third countries;

Amendment 162 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – point b (new)

(b) Such enforcement bodies should be able to impose an appropriate range of sanctions for violations of UTP regulations, including the imposition of dissuasive financial penalties of amounts sufficient to ensure that no enterprise can profit from imposing UTPs.

Amendment 163 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Considers it necessary for the Commission assessment to take into account the possibility of drawing up rules to ensure the inclusion of farmers in the supply chain without making this conditional on continual supply, given the seasonal nature of production;

Amendment 164 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Points out that many Member States have adopted measures to combat UTPs in the food supply chain; stresses the need for a coordinated and harmonised response at EU level to improve the functioning of the internal market in agricultural products;

Amendment 165 #

Draft opinion
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 166 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Points out that effective antitrust rules create the conditions for a more efficient market by providing legal certainty and encouraging investment;

Amendment 167 #

Tibor SZANYI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. In view of the significant disparities between the VAT percentages on food in different Member States, and the risks of cross border VAT fraud linked to higher VAT levels, urges the Commission and Member States to study the phenomenon and propose measures to reduce the problem.

Amendment 168 #

Draft opinion
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)

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 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that CAP reform introduced measures aimed at addressing the bargaining power gap between farmers and other stakeholders in the food supply chain; is nevertheless concerned that small and family farmers, who have the potential to create and support employment in isolated, remote and mountain regions, аre particularly vulnerable to food supply chain processes;

Amendment 170 #

Esther HERRANZ GARCÍA, Pilar AYUSO, Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Argues that ~~such legislation~~where essential, light touch legislation, at the appropriate level, coupled with a common understanding on the principles of best practice, would complement the SCI and protect stakeholders who are fully engaged with the Initiative, while ensuring that UTPs are eradicated from the food supply chain and providing primary producers with the necessary legal certainty to address their concerns.

Amendment 171 #

Miguel VIEGAS, Anja HAZEKAMP, Stefan ECK, Matt CARTHY, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Ángela VALLINA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Argues that such legislation would complement the SCI and protect ~~stakeholders who are fully engaged with the Initiative~~the production side, which is considered the most vulnerable bearing in mind the supply-side rigidity arising from long production cycles and the perishable nature of products, while ensuring that UTPs are eradicated from the food supply chain and providing primary producers with the necessary legal certainty to address their concerns.

Amendment 172 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Argues that such legislation ~~would~~is necessary to complement the SCI and protect stakeholders who are fully engaged with the Initiative, while ensuring that UTPs are eradicated from the food supply chain and providing primary producers with the necessary legal certainty to address their concerns.

Amendment 173 #

Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Matt CARTHY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Argues that ~~such~~ legislation ~~would~~is needed to complement the SCI a~~nd protect stakeholders who are fully engaged with the Initiative, while~~long with a number of other measures to increase the bargaining power of the farmers to ensur~~ing~~e that UTPs are eradicated from the food supply chain and to provid~~ing~~e primary producers with the necessary legal certainty to address their concerns.;

Amendment 174 #

Daniel BUDA, Mihai ŢURCANU, Cristian-Silviu BUŞOI, Viorica DĂNCILĂ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Argues that such legislation would complement the SCI and protect stakeholders who are fully engaged with the Initiative, while ensuring that UTPs are eradicated from the food supply chain, helping to enhance consumer safety and providing primary producers with the necessary legal certainty to address their concerns, thereby ensuring them a level playing field in dealings with their trading partners.

Amendment 175 #

Ulrike MÜLLER, Jan HUITEMA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Argues that such ~~legislation~~an EU framework would complement the SCI and protect stakeholders who are fully engaged with the Initiative, while ensuring that UTPs are eradicated from the food supply chain and providing primary producers with the necessary legal certainty to address their concerns, preventing market distortions and ensuring a level playing field at EU level.

Amendment 176 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 – point 1 (new)

(1) Notes that in some member states, Country of Origin labelling is used to restrict imports of food from other EU member states, therefore the Commission must be called upon to investigate such unfair practices.

Amendment 177 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Calls on Member States to encourage food superstores routinely to give food aid associations foodstuffs that are unsold but still edible, notably by slashing or abolishing VAT on food donations to the most needy;

Amendment 178 #

Paul BRANNEN, Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, Maria NOICHL, Marc TARABELLA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Is convinced that consumer awareness about agricultural products is fundamental to address the problems resulting from imbalances in the food supply chain, including UTPs; calls on all stakeholders involved in food supply chain management to step up transparency in the overall food supply chain, increase consumer information by more adequate product labelling and certification schemes in order to enable consumers to make fully informed choices about available products and to act accordingly;

Amendment 179 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Calls on the Commission to look in detail at possible developments as regards ‘own brands’, the effects of which, especially in the current economic crisis, are positive for consumers, but in the medium to long term could become negative, not only jeopardising the competitiveness of the agri-food industry but also curtailing consumer choice if the market penetration of own brands were to exceed a certain risk threshold, which ought to be set for each category of product;

Amendment 18 #

Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Miguel VIEGAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that CAP reform introduced measures aimed at addressing the bargaining power gap between ~~farmers and other stakeholder~~primary producers, the retail trade, the wholesale trade and SMEs in the food supply chain;

Amendment 180 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Urges the commission to encourage a demand led food production system which will contribute to price stability and sustainability for producers in the medium to long term;

Amendment 181 #

Beata GOSIEWSKA, Zbigniew KUŹMIUK, Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI, Stanisław OŻÓG

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Feels that the introduction of rules at EU level would provide greater stability to producers and distributors, who are increasingly frequent actors on several markets in the Member States; feels that preparing general rules for all Member States on counteracting unfair trade practices would provide a guarantee of equal protection to producers, both in countries where effective provisions are already in force and in countries which are just at the stage of introducing appropriate legal systems;

Amendment 182 #

Jørn DOHRMANN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Points out that farmers in a number of EU Member States have secured a strong position in the food supply chain by establishing cooperatives which ensure that value added at the processing stage is channelled back to farmers, and that it is crucial that these cooperatives should not be burdened with extra costs as a result of compulsory and costly red tape;

Amendment 183 #

Miguel VIEGAS, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Ángela VALLINA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Takes the view that any supply chain initiative intending to promote a fair relationship between all links in the chain must begin by considering the mechanisms necessary for farmers to be paid prices covering labour and production costs;

Amendment 184 #

Maria NOICHL, Paul BRANNEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7а. Points out that, pending the entry into force of a Europe-wide legislative framework for tackling UTPs, a promotional symbol/logo such as a ‘fair trade’ one could be introduced to help gradually increase consumer information and confidence as regards the links in the supply chain, based for instance on a common European code of good and fair trading practices;

Amendment 185 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Notes that the Member States could considerably reduce market abuse by creating a legislative framework to ensure that the retailing of agricultural products (e.g. raw milk) at less than cost is prohibited except in a few exceptional cases;

Amendment 186 #

Mairead McGUINNESS, Paolo DE CASTRO, James NICHOLSON, Albert DESS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Points out that private labels also constitute a tool for enhancing competition and consumer choice on the one hand, but on the other hand are a type of vertical integration, the effects of which are completely uncertain and which it would be better to assess in order to neutralise any negative effects;

Amendment 187 #

James NICHOLSON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Calls for increased transparency and information in the supply chain and for a strengthening of bodies such as the Milk Market Observatory to supply farmers with accurate and timely market data;

Amendment 188 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Notes that while private–own brand labelled products can bring increased value and choice to consumers, they give an unfair and anti-competitive position to retailers, who become both customer and competitor; notes that market share in a private-own brand product category may undermine the benefits of these products for consumers and the agri-food industry; insists that the issue of private-own brands requires particular attention from the Commission and Competition Authorities, with a need to address the potential long term consequences for the supply chain;

Amendment 189 #

Paul BRANNEN, Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, Maria NOICHL, Marc TARABELLA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Notes that short food supply chains will be easier to enforce UTPs from adversely affecting farmers and are better for the environment; demands comprehensive action from the Commission to promote and facilitate short, local and sustainable food supply chains;

Amendment 19 #

Miguel VIEGAS, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Ángela VALLINA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that CAP reform introduced measures aimed at addressing the bargaining power gap between farmers and other stakeholders in the food supply chain; recognises, likewise, that in food supply chains in small markets that depend on two or three agri-food industries, as is the case for the markets in the outermost regions, these measures are not sufficient to balance bargaining power between the parties involved;

Amendment 190 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Believes, furthermore, that restoring the bargaining power of the production sector is a necessary element in the regulation of production and markets;

Amendment 191 #

Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Ángela VALLINA, Miguel VIEGAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)

7c. Urges all parties in the food supply chain to consider standard contracts and also new generation contracts where risks and benefits are shared;

Amendment 192 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)

7c. Stresses how extreme the various price agreements between large retailers are, given that their aim is to set the price of milk below the cost of production;

Amendment 193 #

Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Ángela VALLINA, Miguel VIEGAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 d (new)

7d. Calls on the Commission to consider existing initiatives, such as the origin- destination price index, to develop instruments for the monitoring and control of prices paid to farmers in the food supply chain so to ensure the proper functioning of the chain.

Amendment 194 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 e (new)

7e. Underlines the importance of market information tools, such as the European Price Monitoring tool and the Milk Market Observatory, to improve transparency across supply chain to increase market intelligence regarding pricing practices and distribution of profit margins;

Amendment 195 #

Angélique DELAHAYE, Michel DANTIN, Herbert DORFMANN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 f (new)

7f. Stresses that cooperation between national authorities is essential to ensure coherent enforcement and cross border fairness to benefit the producer and the consumer;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
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 20 #

Jan HUITEMA, Ulrike MÜLLER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 1 (new)

(1) Calls on the Commission to support the market to make better use of the opportunities provided in the Single CMO Regulation, with a view to enable the establishment of producer organisations, associations of producer organisations and interbranch organisations;

Amendment 21 #

Paul BRANNEN, Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, Maria NOICHL, Marc TARABELLA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recognises that unfair trading practices (UTPs) result primarily from income and power imbalances in the food supply chain and that these imbalances must be urgently addressed in order to ameliorate the situation for farmers;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Points out that although there already is EU legislation designed to prevent unfair business-to-consumer (B2C) commercial practices (Directive 29/2005), it is insufficient to address unfair practices in the food supply chain; calls, therefore, on the Commission to draft a directive to put an end to unfair business- to-business (B2B) commercial practices;

Amendment 23 #

Herbert DORFMANN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Notes that there are only a few measures left in the CAP that promote cooperation between farmers, e.g. in the form of producers’ organisations in the fruit and vegetables sector; takes the view that efficient producers’ organisations are a tried and tested instrument to support the market position of producers and thus strengthen their role in the food supply chain; calls therefore for the relevant measures in the CAP to be retained and extended to other sectors in which the concentration of supply is particularly important, e.g. in the marketing of milk from mountainous and peripheral areas of the EU;

Amendment 24 #

Luke Ming FLANAGAN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Notes that Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament provides for the establishment of Producer Organisations (POs) and is backed by financial incentives under the second pillar. The legal framework of these extends the possibility for collective bargaining (in some sectors) and delivery contracts (for all sectors) to Producer Organisations, their Associations and Inter Branch Organisations and also introduces temporary exemption from certain competition rules (e.g. market withdrawal or storage by private operators) in periods of severe market imbalance, subject to safeguards. Urges the Commission to strongly promote this approach to increase the bargaining power of the primary producer;

Amendment 25 #

Esther HERRANZ GARCÍA, Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO, Pilar AYUSO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Notes that the European Parliament has produced five resolutions on problems in the EU retail chain, including three specifically on imbalances and abuses within the food supply chain, since 2009; further notes that the European Commission has produced three Communications, a Green Paper and commissioned two Final Reports on similar subjects within the same time frame; on this basis, declares that yet more analysis on the state of the food supply chain will merely delay the pressing need for action to help farmers fight unfair trading practices;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Notes the existence of EU legislation to combat unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices (Directive 29/2005); stresses, however, the absence of EU rules to combat unfair practices between operators in the food chain;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Highlights the important role the consumer, as the driver of demand, holds in the supply chain and stresses that in an open and competitive market producers and processers must innovate and add value to their products to meet ever changing and growing demands;

Amendment 28 #

Bas BELDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Is of the opinion that prices throughout the food supply chain should better reflect the value added by primary producers;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Calls on the Commission to interpret competition law with due account for the efficiency and the well-being of producers so as to eliminate imbalances in the food chain;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that CAP reform, based on four regulations adopted in 2013, introduced measures aimed at addressing the bargaining power gap between farmers and other stakeholders in the food supply chain; however, it makes no specific reference to this issue: for example, Article 4 of Regulation 1305/2013 outlines objectives, among which one might include the issue of the bargaining power gap;

Amendment 30 #

Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Stefan ECK, Anja HAZEKAMP, Miguel VIEGAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Notes that unfair trading practices in the food supply chain come in a number of forms, including: flat charges companies levy on suppliers as a requirement to be on a supplier list ("pay to stay"); late payments of up to 120 days, well over the 60 day limit ("pay you later"); arbitrary discounts large firms give themselves for paying early or on time; retrospective discounting to outstanding money owed a supplier; retailers forcing suppliers to use certain third party packaging producers which give the supermarkets a fee for the business they receive;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Believes that short Food Supply Chains and Local Food Systems should be encouraged as such types of food chains has specific social impacts, economic impacts at both regional and farm level as well as environmental impacts translating themselves into clear benefits for producers and consumers;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Stresses the importance of supply-side cooperation through groupings, such as Producer Organisations (POs), in strengthening the position and bargaining power of producers in the supply chain;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1c. Notes DG Internal Market's Final Report on the Legal Framework covering Business-to-Business Unfair Trading Practices, which showed that for the food supply chain, eight Member States have no coverage of key UTPs through public legislation, and only limited coverage in a further four Member States;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1c. Urges producers, along with processors, to work together to invest in innovation and to increase the added value of their products;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Points to the limitations of the Supply Chain Initiative (SCI), and specifically the absence of farmers’ organisations owing to lack of trust, restriction of anonymous complaints, absence of meaningful mechanisms to adequately combat both well- documented and orally-reported unfair trading practices (UTPs), and, in particular, the lack of enforcement measures and sanctions; for example, in one pan-European survey of suppliers in the food supply chain, 96% of respondents stated that they had been the victims of some form of UTP.

Amendment 36 #

Jean-Paul DENANOT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Points to the limitations of the Supply Chain Initiative (SCI), and specifically the absence of farmers’ organisations owing to lack of trust, restriction of anonymous complaints, absence of meaningful mechanisms to adequately combat well- documented unfair trading practices (UTPs), and, in particular, the lack of enforcement measures and sanctions; calls accordingly for the retail price formation process to be as transparent as possible;

Amendment 37 #

Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Points to~~Acknowledges the limitations of the Supply Chain Initiative (SCI), and specifically the absence of farmers' organisations owing to lack of trust, restriction of anonymous complaints, absence of meaningful mechanisms to adequately combat well- documented unfair trading practices (UTPs), and, in particular, the lack of enforcement measures and sanctions;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Points to the limitations of the Supply Chain Initiative (SCI), and specifically the fact that entities in a strong position will exert undue pressure on others, unilateral and retroactive changes to contracts, the absence of farmers’ organisations owing to lack of trust, restriction of anonymous complaints, absence of meaningful mechanisms to adequately combat well- documented unfair trading practices (UTPs), and, in particular, the lack of enforcement measures and sanctions;

Amendment 39 #

Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Matt CARTHY, Stefan ECK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Points to the limitations of the Supply Chain Initiative (SCI), and specifically the absence of farmers’ organisations owing to lack of trust, restriction of anonymous complaints, absence of meaningful mechanisms to adequately combat well- documented unfair trading practices (UTPs), and, in particular, ~~the lack of enforcement measures and~~given its lack of statutory power its inability to apply any meaningful sanctions;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that CAP reform introduced measures aimed at addressing the bargaining power gap between farmers and other stakeholders in the food supply chain; stresses the need to strengthen the bargaining power of farmers, in particular by giving them the right to have their contracts collectively bargained;

Amendment 40 #

Miguel VIEGAS, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Ángela VALLINA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Points to the limitations of the Supply Chain Initiative (SCI), and specifically the absence of farmers’ organisations owing to lack of trust, restriction of anonymous complaints, absence of meaningful mechanisms to adequately combat well- documented unfair trading practices (UTPs), and, in particular, the lack of enforcement measures and sanctions; notes also that agricultural producers find themselves in a weak negotiating position, because of the relative lack of organisation;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Points ~~to the limitations of~~out that the weakness of farmers in the Ssupply Cchain ~~Initiative (SCI), and specifically the absence of farmers’ organisations ow~~is a result both of the abandonment of measures regulating output ing t~~o lack of trust, restriction of anonymous complaints, absence of meaningful mechan~~he various sectors of production, which has given rise to serious imbalances between supply and demand (the latest example being the acute crismis ~~to adequately combat well-documented unfair trading practices (UTPs), and, in particular, the lack of enforcement measures and sanctions~~following the removal of milk quotas), and of the politically-motivated decision to end collective bargaining by outlawing minimum price agreements via competition rules, which has made it wholly impossible for farmers' organisations to engage in collective bargaining;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Points to the limitations of the Supply Chain Initiative (SCI), and specifically the absence of ~~farmers’ organisations owing to lack of trust~~sufficiently representative and effective farmers’ organisations, especially in the countries which joined the EU after 2004, owing to lack of trust and of suitable financial instruments, restriction of anonymous complaints, absence of ~~meaningful~~appropriate mechanisms to ~~adequat~~effectively combat well- documented unfair trading practices (UTPs), and, in particular, the lack of enforcement measures and sanctions;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Points to the limit~~Welcomes the creations of the Supply Chain Initiative (SCI)~~, and specifically the absence of~~ but regrets the lack of participation by farmers’ organisations owing to lack of trust, restriction of anonymous complaints, absence of meaningful mechanisms to adequately combat well- documented unfair trading practices (UTPs), and, in particular, the lack of enforcement measures and sanctions, which makes its actions basically innocuous and discredits it among farmers’ organisations;

Amendment 44 #

Ulrike MÜLLER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – point a (new)

(a) Points out that European competition law allows consumers to enjoy a wide choice of goods at competitive prices; Calls on the Commission to make sure that farmers, processors and companies have an incentive to invest and innovate as well as to establish initiatives such as the "Initiative Tierwohl" in Germany, by giving them a fair chance to compete on their products' merits, without being hindered by unfair trading practices;

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Agrees with the Commission's position that a single "one size fits all" solution to address the issue of UTPs is not the best way forward for a competitive and fair supply chain;

Amendment 46 #

Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Stefan ECK, Miguel VIEGAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Recognises that the power gaps arising from a highly concentrated market place producers in a very weak position; believes that the stronger parties in contracts should be prevented from exploiting that position to offload corporate risk onto the weaker parties in contracts;

Amendment 47 #

Paul BRANNEN, Maria NOICHL, Marc TARABELLA, Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Notes the serious misuse of basic agricultural foods as "loss leaders" by large scale retailers and the risks posed by this activity to primary food producers and the threat to the long term sustainability of European production of such items;

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Points out reducing prices for the primary producer are not reflected in consumer prices which highlight the imbalance in the food supply chain and the need for regulation;

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Agrees with the Commission that a single solution approach is not sufficient to address the issue of UTPs;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that CAP reform introduced measures ~~aimed at~~which do not make it possible to address~~ing~~ the bargaining power gap between farmers and other stakeholders in the food supply chain;

Amendment 50 #

Paolo DE CASTRO, Michela GIUFFRIDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Believes that the European Commission should give more assistance to the Supply Chain Initiative Governance Group in continuing and stepping up its efforts to enhance SME awareness and finding efficient ways of including SMEs in the initiative;

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Stresses that UTPs may hamper investment and product innovation and product quality and variety, and may therefore reduce the choices available to consumers;

Amendment 52 #

Miguel VIEGAS, Ángela VALLINA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Adds that experience shows that when the Directorate-General for Competition has imposed sanctions on the milk industry, for instance, they were reflected in falls in prices, a clear sign that the sanctions were ultimately borne by the production sector;

Amendment 53 #

Mairead McGUINNESS, Paolo DE CASTRO, Richard ASHWORTH, James NICHOLSON, Albert DESS, Marijana PETIR, Angélique DELAHAYE, Michel DANTIN, Herbert DORFMANN, Paul BRANNEN

Draft opinion
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 54 #

Paul BRANNEN, Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, Maria NOICHL, Marc TARABELLA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Calls on the relevant stakeholders to facilitate incorporation of farmers' organisations, including producers' organisations and their associations, within the scope of national enforcement bodies governing the food supply chain, primarily by securing anonymity of complaints and effective sanctions regime;

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Doubts whether~~Maintains that voluntary initiatives are totally adequate for addressing UTPs and the acknowledged ‘fear factor’ in the supply chain arising from the imbalance of power between farmers and retailers;

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Doubts whether voluntary initiatives are adequate~~Believes that a common understanding of rules and a common set of principles of best practice, combined with light touch action in national law by Member States, offers the best model within an open and competitive market for addressing UTPs and the acknowledged ‘fear factor’ in the supply chain arising from the imbalance of power between farmers and retailers;

Amendment 57 #

Paul BRANNEN, Eric ANDRIEU, Jean-Paul DENANOT, Maria NOICHL, Marc TARABELLA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Doubts whether~~Considers that voluntary initiatives are ~~adequate for~~helpful but cannot comprehensively address~~ing~~ UTPs and the acknowledged ‘fear factor’ in the supply chain arising from the imbalance of power between ~~farm~~operators in the food supply chain including farmers, manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers;

Amendment 58 #

Eric ANDRIEU, Paul BRANNEN, Jean-Paul DENANOT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 59 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Doubts whether voluntary initiatives such as the drawing up of a Green Paper on unfair trading practices in the business-to-business food and non-food supply chain in Europe are adequate for addressing UTPs and the acknowledged ‘fear factor’ in the supply chain arising from the imbalance of power between farmers and retailers;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises ~~that~~ CAP reform as a missed opportunity to introduced measures aimed at addressing the bargaining power gap between farmers and other stakeholders in the food supply chain; underlines that fundamental imbalances of bargaining power between farmers and suppliers on the one hand and manufacturers, processors and retailers on the other remain the root cause of unfair trading practices; notes the domination of the groceries market in Member States by a few major players, forcing farmers into a "price taking" squeeze where they sell at a loss, and limiting viable alternatives to unbalanced business relationships;

Amendment 60 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 61 #

Esther HERRANZ GARCÍA, Pilar AYUSO, Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 62 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Doubts whether~~Believes voluntary initiatives ~~are adequate for addressing~~to be insufficient to eliminate UTPs and the acknowledged ‘fear factor’ in the supply chain arising from the imbalance of power between farmers and retailers;

Amendment 63 #

Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Matt CARTHY, Stefan ECK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Doubts whether~~Believes that voluntary initiatives are inadequate for addressing UTPs and the acknowledged ‘fear factor’ in the supply chain arising from the imbalance of power between farmers and retailers and must be complemented by regulatory action combined with a fundamental rebalancing of the market to give parity to the primary producer;

Amendment 64 #

Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Pascal ARIMONT, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Doubts whether voluntary initiatives are adequate and effective for addressing UTPs and the acknowledged ‘fear factor’ in the supply chain arising from the imbalance of power between farmers and retailers;

Amendment 65 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Doubts whether voluntary initiatives are adequat~~Calls on the Commission to study the existing voluntary initiatives for consultation among the parties in the supply chain and to consider how adequate they are for addressing UTPs and the acknowledged ‘fear factor’ in the supply chain arising from the imbalance of power between farmers and retailers; draws attention to the voluntary initiative for consultation among the parties in the supply chain in Belgium, which is a response to the justified concern felt on account of the ‘fear factor’ in the supply chain;

Amendment 66 #

Tomáš ZDECHOVSKÝ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Doubts whether voluntary initiatives are adequate for addressing UTPs and the acknowledged ‘fear factor’ in the supply chain arising from the i~~mbalance~~nequality of power between farmers and retailers;

Amendment 67 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 68 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Doubts whether voluntary initiatives are adequate ~~for~~to address~~ing UTPs and~~ the acknowledged ‘'fear factor’' and UTPs in the supply chain arising from the imbalance of power between farmers and retailers;

Amendment 69 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 7 #

Miguel VIEGAS, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Ángela VALLINA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that CAP reform introduced measures aimed at addressing the bargaining power gap between farmers and other stakeholders in the food supply chain; adds, however, that it brought in no specific measures to combat unfair trade practices,

Amendment 70 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Doubts whether~~Believes voluntary initiatives ~~are~~ to be inadequate for addressing UTPs and the acknowledged ‘fear factor’ in the supply chain arising from the imbalance of power between farmers and retailers;

Amendment 71 #

Alberto CIRIO, Herbert DORFMANN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Doubts whether voluntary initiatives are adequate for addressing UTPs and the acknowledged ‘fear factor’ in the supply chain arising from the imbalance of power between farmers and retailers, but recognises that purely voluntary codes are useful for identifying issues, despite their suffering from methodological problems such as lack of representativeness, conflicts of interest and the absence of any real penalties to ensure they are applied;

Amendment 72 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Doubts whether~~Recognises that voluntary initiatives ~~are adequate for address~~can only be an initial stage in, rather than the end goal of, combating UTPs and the acknowledged ‘fear factor’ in the supply chain arising from the imbalance of power between farmers and retailers;

Amendment 73 #

Hannu TAKKULA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 74 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Doubts whether voluntary initiatives are adequate for addressing UTPs ~~and the acknowledged ‘fear factor’ in the supply chain arising from the imbalance~~; notes that the 'fear factor' prevents reporting of unacceptable demands by major retailers on food processors, and consequently ofn p~~ower betw~~roducers, which emphasises the neend f~~armers and retailers~~or effective regulatory action to ensure fairness in the food supply chain;

Amendment 75 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. D~~oubts whether voluntary initiatives are adequate for addressing UTPs~~raws attention to the ineffectiveness and inadequacy of voluntary initiatives to combat UTPs in the agri-food sector and the acknowledged ‘fear factor’ in the supply chain arising from the imbalance of power between farmers and retailers; considers it important, therefore, to combine voluntary initiatives with framework legislation at European level;

Amendment 76 #

Sandra KALNIETE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Doubts whether voluntary, self- regulatory and national regulatory initiatives are adequate for addressing UTPs and the acknowledged ‘fear factor’ in the supply chain arising from the imbalance of power between farmers and retailers;

Amendment 77 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Doubts whether voluntary initiatives are adequate for addressing UTPs and the acknowledged ‘fear factor’ in the supply chain arising from the imbalance of power between ~~farm~~primary producers and retailers;

Amendment 78 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stresses that where legislation is required, a light-touch approach should be implemented, with preference given for an approach based on commonly agreed best practice, and notes that the practice of "forum shopping" must be prevented through greater cooperation between the Member State enforcement authorities;

Amendment 79 #

Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Stefan ECK, Anja HAZEKAMP, Miguel VIEGAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Calls on the Commission to establish a compulsory code of good trading practices in the food supply chain which must be based on a clear correlation between the price paid to the farmer and the price paid by the consumer; points to the need to introduce, as a minimum, the requirement to conclude written contracts (setting out, for example, prices and delivery and payment times and methods) and establish legal payment periods, with Member States being required to set the time limits for these; calls on the Commission, when establishing this compulsory code of good practices, to set up a supervisory body and a system of penalties for UTPs;

Amendment 8 #

Miguel VIEGAS, Anja HAZEKAMP, Stefan ECK, Matt CARTHY, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Ángela VALLINA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Recognis~~Notes that CAP reform introduced measures aimed at addressing the bargaining power gap between farmers and other stakeholders in the food supply chain, measures which have so far proved ineffective;

Amendment 80 #

Miguel VIEGAS, Anja HAZEKAMP, Stefan ECK, Matt CARTHY, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Ángela VALLINA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Notes that the Supply Chain Initiative (SCI), which is purely voluntary in nature, does not address the real problem arising from the highly concentrated structure of large-scale distribution and the supply-side rigidity that applies to most agricultural producers;

Amendment 81 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Highlights that as supermarkets have acquired increasing reputation and market power, they have developed their own brands, this has given the retailer a new role – in addition to their traditional role as purchaser, they have become a direct competitor This widens the scope for buyer power abuse in that it can adversely affect choice for consumers and could also affect innovation;

Amendment 82 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stresses the need for an in-depth analysis of relative bargaining powers within the food supply chain in order to assess – as some anti-trust authorities already have – the distortions that appear at each link in the chain, including the role of private labels;

Amendment 83 #

Elisabeth KÖSTINGER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stresses that the massive imbalance of power between the food trade and agricultural primary producers must be ironed out so that a functioning market in the food sector can be upheld, and notes in this connection that there is a particularly pronounced market concentration in the food trade in a number of Member States;

Amendment 84 #

Elisabeth KÖSTINGER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Takes the view that independent national regulators for the food sector could be an effective measure to combat unfair trade practices, as they create greater transparency along the value chain and enable ex-ante checks to be carried out to protect against abuse of dominant positions in the market; in this connection calls on the Commission also to consider the possibility of establishing a European regulator which could assume a coordinating role;

Amendment 85 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Notes that, in view of the flaws inherent in self-regulation in a market in which there are major imbalances in bargaining powers, it is worthwhile considering co-regulation, or in other words regulation that ensures consistency but leaves broad scope for self-regulation in order to ensure respect for the principle of subsidiarity;

Amendment 86 #

Elisabeth KÖSTINGER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3c. Calls on the Commission, in close cooperation with the Member States, to promote initiatives whereby consumers can be alerted to the risks of price dumping for primary producers, and expressly supports awareness-raising campaigns to that end in schools and training establishments;

Amendment 87 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Question~~Denounces 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 in spite of the serious repercussions of foregoing such action;

Amendment 88 #

Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Matt CARTHY, Stefan ECK, Anja HAZEKAMP, Miguel VIEGAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Questions the Commission’s unwavering support for the SCI, given its limited success and also given the reluctance of farmers to participate; regrets the pre- emptive conclusion that regulatory action at EU level is not foreseen;

Amendment 89 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Questions the Commission’s unwavering support for the SCI, given the reluctance of farmers to participate; ~~regrets the pre- emptiv~~cannot accept the overhasty and premature conclusion that regulatory action at EU level is not foreseen;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recognises that CAP reform introduced a number of measures aimed at addressing the bargaining power gap between farmers and other stakeholders in the food supply chain at a time when the number of farmers has fallen significantly, the food chain is lengthening and distribution is highly concentrated, i.e. in superstores waging out-and-out trade wars against each other;

Amendment 90 #

Draft opinion
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, notwithstanding the existence of clear evidence regarding the major hardship caused to small producers as a result;

Amendment 91 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Questions the Commission’'s unwavering support for the SCI, given the reluctance of farmers to participate; regrets the pre- emptive conclusion t~~hat~~o exclude regulatory action at EU level ~~is not foreseen~~thus further enhancing the risk of a fragmented internal market;

Amendment 92 #

Ulrike MÜLLER

Draft opinion
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; recalls that the Commission recognises the risk of "forum shopping" and sees this as a threat to the functioning of the Single Market;

Amendment 93 #

Miguel VIEGAS, Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO, Luke Ming FLANAGAN, Ángela VALLINA

Draft opinion
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~~Commission's reluctance to negotiate on the issues of anonymity and sanctions;

Amendment 94 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Questions the Commission’s unwavering support for the SCI, given th~~e reluctance of farmers to participate; regrets the pre- emptive conclusion that~~at it foresees no regulatory action at EU level ~~is not foreseen~~;

Amendment 95 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 96 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Question~~Acknowledges the Commission’s ~~unwavering~~ support for the SCI~~, given the reluctance of farm~~ and notes that commonly unders to ~~participate; regrets the pre-emptive conclusion that regulatory action at EU level is not foreseen~~od best practice combined with light touch legislation to ensure a consistent approach across the Internal Market offers the best model for farmers and for the sector overall;

Amendment 97 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Que~~stion~~ries the Commission’s unwavering support for the SCI, given the ~~reluctance~~low numbers of farmers to participateing in it; regrets the pre-emptive conclusion that regulatory action at EU level is not foreseen;

Amendment 98 #

Hannu TAKKULA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 99 #

Bas BELDER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Questions the Commission’s unwavering support for the SCI, given the reluctance of farmers to participate as their concerns about imbalances in the nature of the enforcement mechanisms were not adequately taken into account; regrets the pre- emptive conclusion that regulatory action at EU level is not foreseen;

source: 567.770

2015/11/09 IMCO 16 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the food trade has an increasingly significant cross-border dimension and is of ~~particula~~major importance for the functioning of the internal market; whereas cross-border trade between the EU Member States accounts for 20% of the EU’s total food and drink production; whereas 70% of all Member States’ food exports are to other Member States;

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Welcom~~Notes the setting up of the Supply Chain Initiative, which has resulted in the adoption of a set of principles of good practice ~~in B2B~~for vertical relationships 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~~should make an impact, although the serious shortcomings of the initiative highlighted by groups representing farmers which have chosen not to participate (such as the fact that it is not possible to lodge confidential complaints, there is no enforcement mechanism and there are no effective penalties) mean that it is inadequate for the purpose of combating UTPs;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
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 business competitiveness, investment and product innovation throughout the food supply chain, to the detriment of consumer choice and the quality, variety and innovativeness of the products made available;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Believes that the Supply Chain Initiative and other national and EU voluntary systems (codes of good practice, voluntary dispute settlement mechanisms) should be further developed and promoted~~; encourages producers and traders~~ in conjunction with effective and robust enforcement mechanisms at Member State level ensuring that complaints can be lodged anonymously and establishing dissuasive penalties, and with EU-level coordination; encourages producers and traders, including farmers' organisations, to become involved in such initiatives; takes the view that they should play a leading role in efforts to combat UTPs; recognises the potential that such initiatives have as alternative forums for dispute resolution;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Reaffirms that free and fair competition, freedom to contract and ~~proper~~strong and effective enforcement of the relevant legislation to protect all entities in the food supply chain, irrespective of geographical location, are of key importance in ensuring the proper functioning of the food supply chain;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Urges the Commission to submit without delay specific proposals for ~~EU legislation~~basic EU-level framework legislation establishing a unitary EU framework laying down general principles and taking proper account of national circumstances and best practices, with the aim of banning UTPs in the entire 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 15 #

Motion for a resolution
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, while also capitalising on measures already taken in some Member States that are proving to be effective; 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;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls on the Commission to assess the voluntary and self-regulatory schemes put in place to date and, in particular, the progress achieved by the Supply Chain Initiative and its national platforms; points out that matters in this area hinge on the quantitative and qualitative assessment of the issues raised and resolved by the various entities in the food supply chain; calls also the Commission to assess the effectiveness of the regulatory action taken at national and EU level and of the enforcement mechanisms put in place at those levels; 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; expects to be notified of the findings of this assessment;

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas significant structural changes have taken place in the business-to- business (B2B) food supply chain in recent years, involving ~~concentration and vertical integration of entities operating in the production, processing and retail sector~~a very high level of concentration and horizontal, cross border and vertical integration of entities operating in the production sector, and especially in the processing and retail sectors, leading to the formation of full- blown oligopolies;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas supermarkets are developing their own brands and squeezing independent brands, and whereas there is therefore a conflict of interests in that, because of vertical integration, traders are competing directly with their own suppliers; whereas, where supermarkets have their own brands, agricultural producers are vulnerable in price negotiations with them and there is a lack of outlets for products in a number of countries;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Points out that own brands represent a strategic issue in the medium and long term; calls on the Commission to look in detail at the growing penetration of the agri-food chain by so-called ‘own brands’, which is liable to hamper both the competitiveness of the agri-food industry and fair competition and adversely affect innovation and product quality, as well as consumer choices when making purchases, if the market penetration of own brands exceeds a certain risk threshold, which ought to be set for each category of product; points out that some competition authorities have found that own brands introduce a horizontal dimension to competition in respect of industrial brands which had never previously been a factor; believes it necessary, therefore, to introduce specific measures to guarantee effective competition in this sector based on a balanced relationship between distributors and producers, which will also ensure that consumers receive correct information; notes that while own brand-labelled products can bring increased value and choice to consumers, they give an unfair and anti-competitive position to retailers, who become both customer and competitor;

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas unfair practices ~~may~~ have harmful consequences for the individual entities in the food supply chain, which in turn ~~may have~~has a detrimental impact on the entire EU economy, on the economic interests of states and on consumers, by limiting their choice of products and their access to new and innovative products; whereas UTPs ~~may~~ discourage cross-border trade in the EU and hinder the proper functioning of the internal market; whereas unfair practices can result in particular in individual enterprises cutting back on investment and innovation, particularly in the areas of environmental protection, working conditions and animal welfare, owing to a reduction in income and a lack of certainty, and may lead them to abandon production, processing or trading activities;

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)

Ga. whereas UTPs can result in excessive costs or lower-than-expected revenues for businesses with weaker bargaining power, as well as overproduction and food waste;

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)

Ia. whereas there is a practice known as ‘forum shopping’, whereby, taking advantage of disparities between the Member States’ laws on UTPs in the food supply chain, the stronger contractual party unilaterally decides in which Member State – i.e. under which regulatory framework – the contract will apply in order to avoid stricter measures against UTPs; points out that a fragmented market leads to regulatory uncertainty for those involved and thus creates an imbalance in surplus distribution along the value chain in the various countries concerned;

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital K

K. whereas the ‘fear factor’ caoften comes into play in commercial relationships, with the weaker party being unwilling to lodge a complaint about UTPs imposed by the stronger party, out of concern that this would put an end to their commercial relationship;

Amendment 9 #

Dennis de JONG, Robert ROCHEFORT, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the steps taken to date by the Commission to combat UTPs with a view to securing a more balanced market but believes that they do not go far enough;

source: 571.610

2016/03/02 IMCO 131 amendments...

Amendment 273 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)

- having regard to the report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on unfair business-to- business trading practises in the food supply chain (COM (2016) 32),

Amendment 274 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 2 a (new)

- having regard to the European Commission's report to the European Parliament and to the Council on unfair business-to-business trading practices in the food supply Chain (COM(2016)32 final)

Amendment 275 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 a (new)

- having regard to the European Parliament's Annual report on EU Competition Policy, namely on paragraph 104,

Amendment 276 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 9 a (new)

- having regard to the Final report of the Study "Monitoring the implementation of principles of good practice in vertical relationships in the food supply chain" produced by Areté srl for the European Commission (January 2016),

Amendment 277 #

Daniel DALTON, Vicky FORD

Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 a (new)

- having regard to the UK Groceries Code Adjudicator Investigation into Tesco plc from 26th January 2016,

Amendment 278 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 a (new)

- having regard to the Report of the European Commission of 29th January 2016 on unfair business-to-business trading practices in the food supply chain,

Amendment 279 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 a (new)

- having regard to the universal framework for Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems (SAFA) developed by FAO,

Amendment 280 #

Mairead McGUINNESS, Angélique DELAHAYE, Norbert ERDŐS, Philippe JUVIN, Marijana PETIR

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 a (new)

- having regard to the European Parliament's Annual report on EU Competition Policy, namely on paragraph 104,

Amendment 281 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 a (new)

- having regard to the European Parliament's Annual report on EU Competition Policy, particularly paragraph 104,

Amendment 282 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 a (new)

- having regard to the extremely critical situation faced by farmers and agricultural cooperatives, especially, in the dairy, pigmeat, beef, fruit & vegetables and cereals,

Amendment 283 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 b (new)

- having regard to the European Parliament Resolution of 19 January 2016 on the Annual report on competition policy in 2015 (2015/2140(INI)),

Amendment 284 #

Mairead McGUINNESS, Angélique DELAHAYE, Norbert ERDŐS, Philippe JUVIN, Marijana PETIR

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 b (new)

- having regard to the extremely critical situation faced by farmers and agricultural cooperatives, especially, in the dairy, pig meat, beef, fruit & vegetables and cereals,

Amendment 285 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 b (new)

- having regard to the UK Groceries Code Adjudicator investigation into Tesco PLC from January 2016,

Amendment 286 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 c (new)

- having regard to the UK Groceries Code Adjudicator Investigation into Tesco plc from 26th January 2016,

Amendment 287 #

Dennis de JONG, Robert ROCHEFORT, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 d (new)

Amendment 288 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas unfair trading practices (UTPs) are a problem attested to by all entities in the food supply chain and by many national competition authorities; whereas the Commission's report of 29 January 2016 on unfair business-to-business trading practices in the food supply chain confirms that those practices can occur at every stage of the food supply chain; whereas the Commission and Parliament have repeatedly drawn attention to the problem of UTPs;

Amendment 289 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

Amendment 290 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas 'unfairness' in the food supply chain is difficult to translate into infringement of current competition law, as its existing tools are only effective on some forms of anti-competitive behaviour;

Amendment 291 #

Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI, Franz OBERMAYR

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the review of arrangements for addressing unfair trading practices (UTPs) in Member States set out in the Commission report confirms that voluntary measures (such as best-practice schemes) are not enough and that almost all Member States have taken regulatory action in this area; whereas experience in other Member States, as detailed in the report, shows that voluntary measures can play only a supplementary role (education, raising awareness of UTPs); whereas the newly established High-Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain provides an opportunity to further develop the approach based on voluntary measures;

Amendment 292 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas unfair commercial practices must be considered not only at inter- continental level but also within the internal market; whereas such unfair practices, combined with abuse of a dominant position, have already caused havoc in the economy and the collapse of many small enterprises in the food sector;

Amendment 293 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas the Single Market has brought major benefits to operators in the food supply chain, whereas cross-border trade within the EU accounts for about 20 % of total food and beverage production and whereas 70% of the total exports are destined to other EU Member States;

Amendment 294 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

Amendment 295 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas unfair practices may have harmful consequences for the food supply chain, which in turn may have a detrimental impact on the entire EU economy; whereas UTPs may discourage cross-border trade in the EU and hinder the proper functioning of the internal market; whereas unfair practices can result in particular in enterprises cutting back on investment and innovation owing to a reduction in income and a lack of certainty, and may lead them to abandon production, processing or trading activities; whereas UTPs pose a grave threat to the livelihood of European farmers, whose production is mostly based on family farms;

Amendment 296 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

Amendment 297 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas SMEs and microenterprises are particularly vulnerable to UTPs and are more affected than large enterprises by their impact of UTPs, which make it harder for them to survive on the market, undertake new investments in products and technology and innovate, and make it more difficult for SMEs to expand their activities, including across borders within the single market; whereas SMEs are discouraged to engage in commercial relationships due to the risk of UTPs being imposed on them;

Amendment 298 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital K

Amendment 299 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)

Ka. whereas farmers are in a weak position in the supply chain as a result both of the abandonment of measures regulating output in the various sectors of production, which has given rise to serious imbalances between supply and demand (the latest example being the acute crisis following the removal of milk quotas), and of the politically-motivated decision to end collective bargaining by outlawing minimum price agreements via competition rules, which has made it wholly impossible for farmers' organisations to engage in collective bargaining;

Amendment 300 #

Daniel DALTON, Vicky FORD

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the steps taken to date by the Commission to combat UTPs with a view to securing a more balanced market but believes that this could go further;

Amendment 301 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the steps taken to date by the Commission to combat UTPs with a view to securing a more balanced market and takes note of the Commission Report of the 29th January 2016 on unfair business-to-business trading practices in the food supply chain, supports its conclusions, which suggest that regulatory harmonisation at EU level would have no added value to actions already being taken at member state level;

Amendment 302 #

Mairead McGUINNESS, Angélique DELAHAYE, Norbert ERDŐS, Philippe JUVIN, Marijana PETIR

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the steps taken to date by the Commission to combat UTPs with a view to securing a more balanced market; regrets the Commission's conclusion in its 2016 report on unfair business-to- business trading practices in the food supply chain, that it does not currently propose to adopt a harmonised regulatory approach to tackle unfair trading practices at EU level;

Amendment 303 #

Dennis de JONG, Robert ROCHEFORT, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Calls for binding action in the food supply chain against retailers harming farmers and consumers;

Amendment 304 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Welcomes the report by the Commission on unfair business-to- business trading practices in the food supply chain, as well as the long-expected accompanying study on the monitoring of the implementation of principles of good practices in vertical relationship in the food supply chain;

Amendment 305 #

Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI, Franz OBERMAYR

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Affirms that the most effective way to protect the most vulnerable enterprises is to ensure that they once more become competitive (at regional, national or international level) on their own domestic markets, using a fair and effective system of tariff gates to combat all inadmissible practices and unfair competition on the part of certain supplier countries, all too often making it possible for dominant market players to bring inadmissible commercial pressure to bear; urges the Commission to ensure that any policies it decides to introduce do not defeat the object as a result of dominant market players deciding to avoid trade conflicts, by outsourcing food supplies completely, a far from negligible eventuality, given the absence, not to say the actual prohibition, of any form of smart protectionism on the internal market;

Amendment 306 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

Amendment 307 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Welcomes the action taken by the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning of the Food Supply Chain and the setting up of the expert platform on B2B practices, which has drawn up a list, a description and an assessment of trading practices that may be regarded as grossly unfair; points out, nonetheless, that the role the forum is to play in promoting dialogue with economic operators will in practice be confined to promoting best practice, which, as the Commission report confirms, is not enough to get rid of UTPs once and for all;

Amendment 308 #

Nicola DANTI, Paolo DE CASTRO, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Virginie ROZIÈRE, Maria GRAPINI, Pina PICIERNO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

Amendment 309 #

Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the setting up and development 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 comprehensive voluntary framework for the implementation of those principles which only in the second year of operation already numbers over one thousand participating companies from across the entire EU and mainly SMEs; believes that efforts to promote fair trading practices in the food supply chain can make a real impact;

Amendment 310 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Welcom~~Acknowledges 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~~n impact, but cannot be considered sufficient to tackle the problem of UTPs in the food supply chain; notes that the results emerged from the conclusions of the Commission's study on the SCI recently published "seem very modest if measured against the actual or perceived magnitude and seriousness of the issue of UTPs in the food supply chain, and even more so if measured against the expectations of the stakeholders which are most seriously impacted by UTPs, and of policy makers";

Amendment 311 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Marc TARABELLA, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Welcomes the setting up~~Expresses doubts as to the Commission's assessment of the effectiveness 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, in particular, as regards the collection of data relating to complaints received and resolved, that a more detailed analysis has not been carried out, in terms of both quantity and quality, to understand what types of operators have resorted to this option and whether large distributors or SMEs have benefited more greatly; believes that the failure to carry out such an in-depth assessment could undermine the overall judgment of the initiative;

Amendment 312 #

Motion for a resolution
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 volunta~~takes the view that a mandatory framework is needed for the implementation of those principles, which should make provision for farm prices that will cover labour and production costs; believes that efforts to promote fair trading practices in the food supply chain can make a real impact;

Amendment 313 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Is very concerned about recent findings that one of the early signatories of the SCI operating across Europe has been found guilty of unreasonably delaying payments to its suppliers; regrets that neither the Commission nor the SCI has directly reported this finding in their reports;

Amendment 314 #

Nicola DANTI, Paolo DE CASTRO, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Virginie ROZIÈRE, Maria GRAPINI, Pina PICIERNO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Notes that the complaints issued in the framework of the voluntary codes, specifically within the SCI, are very limited, as it has been spotted by the Commission's study on the SCI; notes also that the Commission's study does not precisely indicate the number of disputes solved in the last years, rendering thus impossible to assess the effectiveness of the SCI in tackling the problem of UTPs in the food supply chain;

Amendment 315 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Believes that the Supply Chain Initiative, as recognised by the recent European Commission report, has inherent weaknesses such as: - Lack of effective deterrents against UTPs; - Not allowing for individual anonymous complaints by potential victims of UTPs or for own-initiative investigations by an independent body.

Amendment 316 #

Mairead McGUINNESS, Angélique DELAHAYE, Norbert ERDŐS, Philippe JUVIN, Marijana PETIR

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Believes that the Supply Chain Initiative, as recognised by the recent European Commission report, has inherent weaknesses such as lack of effective deterrents against UTPs, not allowing for individual anonymous complaints by potential victims of UTPs or for own-initiative investigations by an independent body.

Amendment 317 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Reiterates farmers reluctance to join the Supply Chain Initiative due to the lack of anonymous complaints and sanctions; notes that in the case of Finland, farmers joined the SCI and subsequently left due to these limitations;

Amendment 318 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Nicola DANTI, Marc TARABELLA, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Catherine STIHLER, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Is concerned about the Commission report which does not take into account many findings of the study, notably with regard to the assessment of voluntary approaches;

Amendment 319 #

Nicola DANTI, Paolo DE CASTRO, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Virginie ROZIÈRE, Maria GRAPINI, Pina PICIERNO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Emphasizes that, as it has been reported by the Commission's study, the SCI, at the moment, does not have robust enforcement mechanisms nor effective deterrent instruments and penalties, such as monetary and/or economic sanctions, which will be able to address the problem of the UTPs in the food supply chain; therefore, asks the Commission to undertake concrete actions to establish effective enforcement mechanisms capable to act cross-borders, such as the establishment of an independent EU enforcement authority or a network of national authorities, mutually recognized at the EU level; these independent authorities shall be empowered to conduct investigations ex-oficio and/or on the basis of informal information and/or on the basis of complaints dealt with on a confidential basis, thus overcoming the so-called "fear factor";

Amendment 320 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Points out that the Supply Chain Initiative needs to be further strengthened through a number of actions which are identified by the European Commission on its recent report. These include: - Stepping up efforts to publicise the SCI, particularly among SMEs; - Ensuring the impartiality of the governance structure, e.g. by establishing an independent chair who is not affiliated to specific stakeholder groups; - Allowing alleged victims of UTPs to complain confidentially; - Setting up an independent body with the power to investigate complaints and impose sanctions where appropriate; - Enhancing internal procedures to check that individual operators comply with their processes commitments; - Monitoring the occurrence and outcome of bilateral disputes in a confidential manner;

Amendment 321 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Marc TARABELLA, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Catherine STIHLER, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Points out that the Supply Chain Initiative must be further improved namely through the four actions identified by the European Commission on its recent report by: Step up efforts to publicise the SCI, especially among SMEs; Ensuring the impartiality of the governance structure, for instance by establishing an independent chair who is not affiliated to specific stakeholder groups; Allow alleged victims of UTPs to complain confidentially. Nominate an independent body with power to investigate and impose sanctions; Enhance internal procedures to check that individual operators comply with their processes commitments and to monitor the occurrence and outcome of bilateral disputes in a confidential manner;

Amendment 322 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3c. Regrets that no concrete case has been examined to assess the SCI role in tackling unfair trading practices;

Amendment 323 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Marc TARABELLA, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Catherine STIHLER, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 d (new)

3d. Regrets that some of the dispute resolution options promoted by the SCI have not yet been used in practice and the assessment of their effectiveness has been based more on "theoretical" judgments rather than on empirical observation;

Amendment 324 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Nicola DANTI, Marc TARABELLA, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Catherine STIHLER, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 e (new)

3e. Rather than simply encouraging some improvements in the SCI, stresses that study evaluating the effectiveness of the SCI highlights a broad range of its shortcomings – lack of trust from external experts and organisations, weaknesses in governance, under-representation of SMEs, limitations in transparency and no enforcement measures and penalties;

Amendment 325 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Marc TARABELLA, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Catherine STIHLER, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 f (new)

3f. Stresses the evaluation of the study which concludes that SCI has very limited powers to directly enforce measures to address UTPs, notably due to the lack of effective deterrents against unfair behaviour;

Amendment 326 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Marc TARABELLA, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 g (new)

3g. Believes, that current voluntary framework's dispute resolutions should remain available for all suppliers who are not concerned about their anonymity and may usefully evolve as an educational and best practices sharing platform;

Amendment 327 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Nicola DANTI, Marc TARABELLA, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Catherine STIHLER, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 h (new)

3h. Regrets that study assessed only 4 national voluntary initiatives; points out that only one of those is generally considered as effective and adequate; on the contrary, another one has been negatively affected by serious weaknesses and no disputes have been brought before the board to date;

Amendment 328 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Marc TARABELLA, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Catherine STIHLER, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 i (new)

3i. Points out that recent study findings do not bring the evidence for the Commission's evaluation statement that voluntary initiatives seem to work better in some countries than in others, and that the Commission should seriously take into account several rather negative national experiences with voluntary agreements in order to move towards establishing concrete legislative and enforcing measures to prevent unfair trading practices;

Amendment 329 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes 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, with the aim being to nurture trust throughout the food supply chain, from producer to consumer, to the benefit of all;

Amendment 330 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes 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; regrets, however, that in assessing the effectiveness of the Supply Chain Initiative, cross-border trading practices between stakeholders in different countries, which remain outside the area of responsibility of the national platforms, have not been sufficiently taken into consideration; stresses that in order to build an efficient European single market it is vital not to neglect this aspect, on which there is a lack of data, also concerning the negative impact on producers' income;

Amendment 331 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcom~~Notes the setting up of Supply Chain Initiative national platforms of organisations and businesses in the food supply chain to promote fair trading practices and seek to put an end to UTPs; points out however that some national platforms have not delivered on these objectives and, as in the case of Finland, farmers have abandoned that platform;

Amendment 332 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes 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; points out that some national platforms have not delivered on these objectives and, as in the case of Finland, farmers have abandoned that platform;

Amendment 333 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – point 1 (new)

(1) Welcomes the Commission`s currently on-going study on choice and innovation in the retail sector; believes that this exercise would be instrumental for clarifying the evolution and drivers for choice and innovation at overall market level;

Amendment 334 #

Mairead McGUINNESS, Angélique DELAHAYE, Norbert ERDŐS, Philippe JUVIN, Marijana PETIR

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls for the establishment of a European observatory for food and agricultural prices at origin and at destination; draws attention to the Spanish origin-destination price index IPOD as a possible model for monitoring potential abuses by retailers of farmers and consumers;

Amendment 335 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Welcomes the development of alternative and informal~~Takes the view that the development of mechanisms for dispute settlement and redress, in particular through mediation and amicable arrangements, should be enshrined in law;

Amendment 336 #

Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Welcomes the ~~regulatory~~targeted action taken by some Member States, which have introduced provisions supplementing national competition law, broadened the scope of application of the directives on UTPs by extending their provisions to cover B2B relations, and set up independent enforcement ~~agenc~~bodies;

Amendment 337 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Welcomes the regulatory action taken by some Member States, which have introduced provisions supplementing national competition law, broadened the scope of application of the directives on UTPs by extending their provisions to cover B2B relations, and set up independent enforcement agencies; notes, however, that diversity of approaches results in various degrees and type of protection granted against UTPs;

Amendment 338 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Welcomes the ~~regulatory action taken by some Member States, which have introduced provisions supplementing national competition law, broadened the scope of application of the directives on UTPs by~~fact that more than 20 Member States have or are planning to introduce legislation to tackle UTPs, indicating the exten~~ding~~t of their pro~~visions to cover B2B relations, and set up independent enforcement agencies~~blem and the need for legislative action at EU level so as to ensure a level playing field;

Amendment 339 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Nicola DANTI, Marc TARABELLA, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Catherine STIHLER, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Points out, following the recent Commission study main findings on the Supply chain initiative, that more than 20 Member States have introduced legislation to combat UTPs or are planning to do so in the near future; welcomes that Commission report identifies a number of specific areas to be improved in this regard; believes, that this set of best practices should serve as a basis for effective and transparent framework of legislative and enforcement measures in the EU;

Amendment 340 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

Amendment 341 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Stresses that whilst many Member States have adopted legislation to combat UTPs in the food supply chain, a coordinated and harmonised binding action at EU level to improve the functioning of the food supply chain is still necessary; stresses that whilst many Member States have adopted legislation to combat UTPs in the food supply chain, a coordinated and harmonised binding action at EU level to improve the functioning of the food supply chain is still necessary;

Amendment 342 #

Motion for a resolution
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 business ethics;

Amendment 343 #

Motion for a resolution
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 especially affect SMEs;

Amendment 344 #

Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Endorses the Commission’s view that UTPs arise as a result of a lack of balance in commercial relationships and a worrying increase in the bargaining power of larger entities, which gives them a dominant position on the market that allows them to impose unfavourable contractual terms on weaker trading partners and to make use of unfair practices that grossly deviate from good commercial conduct and are contrary to the principles of good faith and fair dealing; condemns practices that exploit imbalances in bargaining power between economic operators and have an adverse effect on freedom to contract;

Amendment 345 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

Amendment 346 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

Amendment 347 #

Mairead McGUINNESS, Angélique DELAHAYE, Norbert ERDŐS, Philippe JUVIN, Marijana PETIR

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Believes that the Supply Chain Initiative and other national and EU voluntary systems (codes of good practice, voluntary dispute settlement mechanisms) should be further developed and promoted; encourages producers and traders to become involved in such initiatives; takes the view that they should play a leading role in efforts to combat UTPs and in the development of SMEs;

Amendment 348 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Believes that the Supply Chain Initiative and other national and EU voluntary systems (codes of good practice, voluntary dispute settlement mechanisms) should be further developed and promoted; ~~encourages producers and traders to become invol~~notes that the Commission states in its recent report that the SCI needs to be improved, in ~~such initiatives; takes the view that they should play a leading role in efforts to combat UTP~~particular to take account of confidential complaints, and the granting of investigations and sanctioning powers to independent bodies;

Amendment 349 #

Nicola DANTI, Paolo DE CASTRO, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Virginie ROZIÈRE, Maria GRAPINI, Pina PICIERNO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Regrets that, despite the limits of voluntary codes and initiatives have been clearly highlighted by the conclusions of the Commission's study on the SCI, the Commission does not seem willing to proceed with the swift adoption of a specific EU legislative framework which could better protect consumers, ensure a level-playing field among the stakeholders of the food supply chain, limit the current fragmentation of the single market and effectively tackle the UTPs;

Amendment 350 #

Nicola DANTI, Paolo DE CASTRO, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Virginie ROZIÈRE, Maria GRAPINI, Pina PICIERNO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)

11b. Underlines that the safeguard of confidentiality is an essential component of any dispute resolution process; stresses that the SCI does not provide for a mechanism ensuring confidential or anonymous complaints for potential victims of UTPs. Therefore, asks the Commission to establish a monitoring instrument to ensure and preserve the confidentiality between the parties involved in the dispute, thus reducing the so-called "fear factor";

Amendment 351 #

Dennis de JONG, Robert ROCHEFORT, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT

Motion for a resolution
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, and are inadequate for eliminating the ‘fear factor’ from the supply chain;

Amendment 352 #

Motion for a resolution
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;~~ require independent and effective enforcement mechanisms, as well as appropriate and impartial governance structures, in order to put an end to UTPs once and for all;

Amendment 353 #

Mairead McGUINNESS, Angélique DELAHAYE, Norbert ERDŐS, Marijana PETIR

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. ~~Acknowledges, nonetheless,~~Emphasises 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~~sufficient in eradicating UTPs from the food supply chain once and for all; calls therefore on the Commission to consider framework legislation that would protect all stakeholders in the food supply chain, including those who are already fully engaged with the SCI;

Amendment 354 #

Dennis de JONG, Robert ROCHEFORT, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Urges the Commission to follow-up its recommendations from its report of 29 January 2016 on unfair business-to- business trading practices in the food supply chain, to increase the credibility and effectiveness of the Supply Chain Initiative (SCI) by requiring the relevant stakeholders to: a. improve awareness of the SCI, especially among SMEs, b. ensure the impartiality of the SCI's governance structure, c. allow alleged victims of UTPs to complain confidentially, and d. grant investigatory and sanctioning power to independent bodies;

Amendment 355 #

Mairead McGUINNESS, Angélique DELAHAYE, Norbert ERDŐS, Marijana PETIR

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Points to the UK Groceries Code Adjudicator as a possible model for adaption at EU level which could create a real deterrent to unfair trading practices and help to eliminate the fear factor;

Amendment 356 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Stresses th~~at action~~e need to combat UTPs ~~will help~~ to ensure ~~the~~a proper functioning of the internal market and to develop cross- border trading in the EU;

Amendment 357 #

Fredrick FEDERLEY, Jan HUITEMA, Ulrike MÜLLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Stresses that food supply chain monitoring and control systems must be tailored to guaranteeing food security and to combating any adverse impact on public health by preventing incidents liable to affect food security which may have severe repercussions for the integrity of the entire food supply chain;

Amendment 358 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Calls on the Commission and the Member States fully and consistently to enforce competition law, rules on unfair competition and anti-trust rules; points out, nonetheless, that competition law can go only a limited way towards resolving the problem of unfair practices; points to the rules in the CAP and calls on the Commission to support the market to make better use of the opportunities provided under the Single CMO Regulation, with a view to enable the establishment of producer organisations, associations of producers organisations and inter-branch organisations;

Amendment 359 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 – point 1 (new)

(1) Encourages Member States to examine whether their current national regulatory framework is appropriate to address UTPs, taking into account best practice in other Member States; Calls on the Commission to continue supporting the exchange of best practices between Member States;

Amendment 360 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Calls on the Commission to develop progressively the EU competition framework to include in the monitoring of the food supply chain in Europe the Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems (SAFA) indicators of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), including indicators under the headings of Fair Pricing and Transparent Contracts (S.2.1.1) and Right of Suppliers (S.2.2.1);

Amendment 361 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

~~15.~~ Reaffirms that free and fair competition, freedom to contract and proper enforcement of the relevant legislation are of key importance in ensuring the proper functioning of the food supply chain and in guaranteeing food security;

Amendment 362 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Is particularly concerned by the situation in the dairy sector, where retailers have been imposing prices well below costs following the end of the quota system;

Amendment 363 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Points out that taking advantage of a stronger bargaining position to impose UTPs is a violation of the principle of freedom to contract, as the stronger party has more say in the shape that the business relationship is to take and ~~can~~may unilaterally impose terms that disproportionately serve its own financial interests, and the weaker party has no option other than to agree to those terms; believes that steps need to be taken to build mutual trust between supply chain partners, on the basis of the principles of freedom to contract, equivalence of benefits and freedom to take advantage of those benefits;

Amendment 364 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Views the fact that Member States see regulatory action as the only effective means of addressing UTPs (most Member States have taken, or are taking, such action) and that such measures were introduced only relatively recently as a good reason for taking regulatory action at EU level at the earliest opportunity, rather than delaying it; points out that it will be easier to adjust to uniform EU- wide measures at this stage than at some time in the future;

Amendment 365 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)

16b. Points out that differences in the type and scope of regulatory action at national level can have an adverse effect on competition in the single market and that the regulatory measures taken should therefore be reviewed and harmonised at EU level;

Amendment 366 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

Amendment 367 #

Motion for a resolution
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 relations to be maintained between food producers, suppliers and distributors; believes that these specific proposals for EU legislation should be based on an assessment of the Supply Chain Initiative drawn up by the Commission and must take into account farming organisations’ concerns about the CSI as well as indicators of the success of the initiative;

Amendment 368 #

Dennis de JONG, Robert ROCHEFORT, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT

Motion for a resolution
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 relations to be maintained between food producers, suppliers and distributors; notes that the food supply chain operating on the single European market extends beyond Member States’ borders and that is therefore essential that the EU should, as soon as possible, establish an appropriate legislative framework to regulate this area and meet existing needs;

Amendment 369 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. ~~Urge~~Supports the Commission ~~to submit specific proposals for EU legislation banning UTPs in the food supply chain that will enable markets to oper~~'s efforts in assessing the effectiveness and credibility of available mechanisms for the enforcement of rules against UTPs in Member States; agrees with the Commission thate a~~s they should and fair and transparent relations to be maintained between food producers, suppliers and distributor~~t this stage, there is no added value of a specific harmonized regulatory approach at EU level, given the fact that the large majority of Member States have introduced regulatory measures and public enforcement mechanisms;

Amendment 370 #

Fredrick FEDERLEY

Motion for a resolution
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 relation~~Concludes that recent improvement has been made regarding introduction of regulatory measures and public enforcement systems in a large majority of Member States and that there is tno ~~be maintained between food producers, suppliers and distributors~~added value at this stage for a specific harmonised regulatory approach at EU level;

Amendment 371 #

Mairead McGUINNESS, Angélique DELAHAYE, Norbert ERDŐS, Philippe JUVIN, Marijana PETIR

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. UNotes the Commission's intention in its 2016 report to closely monitor the different approaches for tackling UTPs at Member State level; urges the Commission to submit specific proposals for EUframework legislation 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 distributor~~so as to ensure a level playing field across the Member States;

Amendment 372 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Marc TARABELLA, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Nicola DANTI, Catherine STIHLER, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. Notes results of the study, where survey respondents indicated as the most preferred approaches in tackling UTPs the combination of voluntary initiatives and public enforcement (33% of total answers) or a specific legislation at EU level (32%); on the other side, reliance on voluntary initiatives alone at national (4%) or EU level (9 %) resulted to be the less preferred approach;

Amendment 373 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Marc TARABELLA, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Catherine STIHLER, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)

17b. Believes that in order to reduce UTPs effectively, the Commission should take concrete measures to create common binding rules and should establish or appoint a network of national enforcement authorities which operate according to minimum principles and enforcement standards developed at the EU level;

Amendment 374 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Marc TARABELLA, Liisa JAAKONSAARI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 c (new)

17c. Questions the Commission's vague statement that different approaches in Member States do not seem to have negative consequences for the Single market; points out that previous study accompanying Commission's communication recommended to address the fragmentation of legal rules and approaches in the EU in order to prevent a negative impact of fragmentation on the EU Single Market; Is convinced that fragmentation and different legislative approaches in MS contribute to legal uncertainty, additional costs for businesses, notably SMEs, and raise difficulties to the cross-border market access and cooperation;

Amendment 375 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Marc TARABELLA, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Nicola DANTI, Catherine STIHLER, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 d (new)

17d. Welcomes that the Commission finds it necessary to ensure that UTP legislation covers operators from non-EU countries; Believes that clear and transparent rules at the EU level would facilitate fair trading practices towards third countries traders;

Amendment 376 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Suggests that work should begin on EU rules on the establishment or recognition of national public agencies with responsibility for enforcing laws to combat unfair practices in the food supply chain, which would enable ex-ante checks to be carried out in order to protect against abuses of dominant market position; 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 377 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Marc TARABELLA, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Nicola DANTI, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Calls on the Commission to consider the possibility of establishing a European regulatory body to play a coordinating role between the national regulatory bodies;

Amendment 378 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Is convinced that functioning enforcement mechanisms should be accessible to all market operators in the food supply chain, regardless of geographical origin;

Amendment 379 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Marc TARABELLA, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Catherine STIHLER, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)

18b. Believes that the scope of enforcement should cover entire supply chain both inside Europe and overseas in order to positively contribute to the overall sustainability of the food production; suggests coordinated enforcement across the EU to discourage market players from moving their purchasing department to low-enforcement countries to continue with UTPs;

Amendment 380 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Marc TARABELLA, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Catherine STIHLER, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 c (new)

18c. Calls on Member States without a competent enforcement authority to consider establishment of enforcement authority and provide it with the power to supervise and enforce measures necessary to tackle UTPs;

Amendment 381 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Marc TARABELLA, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Catherine STIHLER, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 d (new)

18d. Points out that existing fragmented and low enhanced cooperation within different national enforcement bodies is not sufficient to address cross-border challenges regarding UTPs;

Amendment 382 #

Olga SEHNALOVÁ, Marc TARABELLA, Liisa JAAKONSAARI, Catherine STIHLER, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 e (new)

18e. Highlights that the enforcement authorities should have a number of different enforcement measures and different range of sanctions at their disposal to allow, according to the gravity, flexibility of response; believes that these measures should aim at changing behaviour and deterrence;

Amendment 383 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Believes strongly that a single, clear, precise and binding definition of UTPs should be drawn up, so as to allow effective rules to be laid down with a view to combating such practices, and advocates uniform application of legislation in the field of unfair competition in all the EU Member States;

Amendment 384 #

Fredrick FEDERLEY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. ~~Believes strongly that a single, clear, precise and binding definition of UTPs should be drawn up, so as to allow effective rules to be laid down with a view to combating such practice~~Considers that it is too early to make a robust assessment if initiatives already in force have been effective in addressing or reducing UTPs;

Amendment 385 #

Theodoros ZAGORAKIS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Believes strongly that a single, clear, precise and binding definition of UTPs, along with an open list of prohibited UTPs at EU level, should be drawn up, so as to allow effective rules to be laid down with a view to combating such practices;

Amendment 386 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19a. Advocates the establishing of control methods which, when uniformly applied in the EU, will help to detect and combat UTPs, enforce the applicable legislation and strengthen national control bodies and cooperation between them;

Amendment 387 #

Robert ROCHEFORT, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

Amendment 388 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. ~~Calls for due account to be taken, when drafting rules in this area,~~Notes that, in adopting measures to counter unfair trading practices within the food supply chain, due account must be taken 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~~it is necessary to 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 and/or competent national bodies and platforms;

Amendment 389 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Calls for due account to be taken, when drafting ~~rules in this area, of~~binding action in the food supply chain against retailers harming farmers and consumers, of the following aspects: the specific features of each market and the legal requirements obpertaining ton 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;

Amendment 390 #

Robert ROCHEFORT, Dennis de JONG, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Calls for due account to be taken, when drafting ~~rules in thi~~binding action in the food supply chain against retailers har~~ea, of~~ming farmers and consumers, in particular the of following aspects: 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;

Amendment 391 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls on the Commission to ~~assess~~continue to assess closely the effectiveness of the voluntary and self-regulatory schemes put in place ~~to date and the effectiveness~~and 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 welfarelevel to combat unfair trading practices; expects the results of the review to be communicated before 2019, focusing in particular on the creation of national platforms and follow-up to the recommendations made in the report of 29 January 2016 (COM (2016) 32) by the various stakeholders, particularly the SCIs;

Amendment 392 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Notes that the Commission's report on the SCI (COM(2016)32) highlights that one of the weaknesses of the SCI is that it does not allow for individual confidential complaints. Supports the Commission's proposal to improve the functioning of the SCI to allow alleged victims of UTP to complain confidentially. Furthermore suggests that anonymity and confidentiality be incorporated into any future legislative initiatives in this area.

Amendment 393 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 b (new)

21b. Notes that the Commission's report regarding the supply chain initiative (SCI) (COM (2016)32) highlights that one of the weaknesses of the SCI is lack of effective deterrents. Thereby calls on the Commission to establish mechanisms to ensure effective deterrents such as fines (as a percentage of turnover in the Member State(s) affected. Supports the Commission's proposal to nominate an independent body with the power to investigate and impose sanctions. In addition, suggests that this independent body have the power to monitor, perform unannounced spot- checks, right to initiate investigation into alleged or potential UTPs as well as to investigate UTPs originating from a complaint.

Amendment 394 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 c (new)

21c. Notes that the Commission's report on the SCI (COM(2016)32) highlights as a strength, the SCI's EU wide nature. Nevertheless is disappointed that the Commission's report and underlying study by Areté does not examine in detail the nature of cross-border UTPs. Underlines that large food retail companies use centralised sourcing more and more as it increases their bargaining position and allows them to exploit economies of scale. Notes accordingly the subsequent weakening of the position of their suppliers and other actors in the supply chain. Highlights that centralised sourcing can also lead to forum shopping for the Member State with the weakest enforcement/legislative framework or penalties. Underlines that one of the priorities for the Juncker Commission is a deeper and fairer internal market and emphasises that failure to address UTPs, including centralised purchasing, undermines this priority as well as another Juncker Commission priority, that of growth and jobs. Therefore calls on the Commission to evaluate the impact of central sourcing by multinationals on UTPs and to check that adequate enforcement mechanisms exist to curb cross-border UTPs by such companies.

Amendment 395 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 d (new)

21d. Is disappointed in the Commission's conclusion to reassess the potential added-value of EU action only by the end of its mandate. Highlights that actors in the food supply chain suffer significant financial injury as the result of late or postponed payment or remittances due to accounting errors as well as unilateral imposition of arbitrary penalties. Therefore is disappointed that the Commission is willing to continue to allow food supply chain actors to continue to suffer financial detriment for at least another 3 years before reconsidering the need to introduce EU action. Calls on the Commission to evaluate the cost of non- action in this sector, and to make this information public. Reminds that the issue of unfair trading practices in the supply chain has been the subject of 5 European Parliament resolutions including 3 specifically on imbalances and abuses in the food supply chain, since 2009; further notes that the European Commission has produced 3 Communications, one Green paper and commissioned two Final Reports on similar subjects in the same timeframe; on this basis declares that yet more analysis on the state of UTPs in the food supply chain will merely delay the pressing need for action to help all food supply chain actors address UTPs. Therefore recommends that work should begin swiftly on a Directive based on Article 114 TFEU which should provide for the establishment or recognition of national public agencies with responsibility for enforcing laws to combat unfair practices in the food supply chain; takes the view that the EU should establish minimum standards for principles, including an open list of outlawed UTPs, and operational procedures regarding investigations undertaken by such agencies on their own initiative and on the basis of informal information and complaints dealt with on a confidential basis (thus overcoming the fear factor); in addition this Directive should provide that national and EU agencies monitor the implementation of such a Directive including unannounced spot-checks, as well as to impose dissuasive penalties of amounts sufficient to ensure that no enterprise can profit from imposing UTPs; Such a Directive should also provide for a single European market coordination forum to enable national enforcement bodies to provide advice, facilitate exchange of good practice and information, cooperate on cross border cases, analyse new forms of UTPs and where appropriate, cooperate in setting and imposing penalties in cases involving operators from more than one Member State. Such public agencies should be sufficiently staffed and funded, and also coordinate with relevant enforcement bodies in Member States and in third countries.

Amendment 396 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 e (new)

21e. Takes note that the Commission's report on the SCI notes that overall level of trust in SCI is high amongst companies who are aware of it; nevertheless points out that this does not correlate with high trust in SCI amongst food supply chain actors as a whole as SMEs and farmers are under-represented and less aware of the SCI due to their relatively lower resources and lack of support from their representative organisations such as COPA-COGECA (European representative organisations for farmers and agri-cooperatives). Therefore, it cannot be claimed that SCI adequately covers all stakeholders in the food supply chain, especially the weakest actors in this chain. Furthermore notes that the Commission's report states that SCI members are significantly more likely to say that the situation regarding UTPs in the food supply chain has improved since the establishment of the SCI. Points out that this does not necessarily mean improvements throughout the food supply chain as the SCI membership is not representative of all the actors in the food supply chain, i.e. that SCI members input into the governance of the SCI to their own advantage whilst non-members cannot, thus further introducing further bias into the voluntary governance of UTPs in the food supply chain.

Amendment 397 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 f (new)

21f. Is disappointed that the Commission's report fails to understand that the SCI is structurally unsuited to achieving the aim of reducing or eliminating SCIs in the food supply chain; underlines that without significant restructuring of SCI leadership and internal governance, the SCI will never be able to reliably protect complainants (fear factor) nor apply enforceable sanctions.

Amendment 398 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 g (new)

21g. Regrets that the Areté study did not examine the cost of food wastage which is a consequence of UTPs, suppliers often find food being sent back for arbitrary reasons and that this is being used as a form of market control used by retailers and tier-one suppliers to offset changes in supply and demand, thus transferring risk up the supply chain. This is contrary to the general principle of fair dealing ('contracting parties should deal with each other responsibly, in good faith and with professional diligence') of the SCI's own Principles of Good practice (PGP); as well as the PGP's specific principles of predictability ('Unilateral change to contract terms shall not take place unless this possibility and its circumstances and conditions have been agreed in advance. The agreements should outline the process for each party to discuss with the other any changes necessary for the implementation of the agreement or due to unforeseeable circumstances, as provided in the agreement'), compliance ('Agreements must be complied with'), responsibility for risk ('All contracting parties in the supply chain should bear their own appropriate entrepreneurial risks');

Amendment 399 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Notes the Commission's observation that farmers' representatives decided not to join the SCI as in their view it does not ensure sufficient confidentiality for complainants, lacks statutory powers for independent investigations and meaningful sanctions as well as an absence of mechanisms to combat well- documented UTPs and that their concerns about imbalances in the nature of enforcement mechanisms have not been properly taken into account. Believes that farmer participation is crucial and that increasing participation is not due to lack of awareness, rather lack of faith in current SCI procedures and governance. Therefore proposes that improving the functioning of the SCI inter alia via independent governance, confidentiality and anonymity, and effective enforcement and effective deterrent, could as a first step increase farmer interest, support, and thereby participation.

Amendment 400 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 b (new)

22b. Notes that the Commission report states that more than 20 Member States have introduced legislation or are planning to do so in the near future. Nevertheless notes that the national schemes examined as examples in the Areté report are either weakly enforced, embryonic in their development and/or lack farmer participation. Therefore their added value in combatting UTPs at this moment is questionable. In addition, highlights that national schemes have a fundamental weakness, that of problems ensuring that actors based in other Member States respect their UTP initiatives in their own Member States, i.e. that Member States along cannot ensure respect for their national initiatives alone, be they legislative or non-legislative; thus highlighting once again the need for a EU-wide solution(s).

Amendment 401 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 c (new)

22c. Supports the Commission's intention to publicise and increase awareness of the SCI, particularly amongst SMEs; encourages the Commission to also target micro-enterprises in their publicity campaigns.

Amendment 402 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 d (new)

22d. Questions the Commission's unwavering support for the Supply Chain Initiative (SCI) in its report, given its limitations; reiterates farmers' reluctance to participate on account of a lack of trust, restrictions on anonymous complaints, a lack of statutory power, an inability to apply meaningful sanctions, the absence of mechanisms adequate to combat well-documented UPTs, and concerns about imbalances in the nature of enforcement mechanisms, which have not been adequately taken into account; regrets the Commission's reluctance to ensure anonymity and appropriate sanctions.

Amendment 403 #