Progress: Procedure completed
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | IMCO | CZESAK Edward ( ECR) | CORAZZA BILDT Anna Maria ( PPE), SEHNALOVÁ Olga ( S&D), ROCHEFORT Robert ( ALDE), ŠOLTES Igor ( Verts/ALE), ZULLO Marco ( EFDD) |
Committee Opinion | AGRI | MCGUINNESS Mairead ( PPE) | Richard ASHWORTH ( ECR), Paul BRANNEN ( S&D), Alyn SMITH ( Verts/ALE) |
Committee Opinion | JURI | ||
Committee Opinion | ENVI |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54
Legal Basis:
RoP 54Subjects
Events
The European Parliament adopted by 600 votes to 48, with 24 abstentions, a resolution on unfair trading practices in the food supply chain in response to the Commission's report of 29 January 2016 on unfair business-to-business trading practices in the food supply chain.
Members recalled that unfair trading practices (UTPs) are a serious problem, occurring in many sectors of the economy. However, the problem is particularly evident in the food supply chain , having adverse effects on the weakest link in the chain. The problem is attested to by all entities in the food supply chain and by many national competition authorities.
UTPs principally consist of: payment delays; restricted access to the market; unilateral or retroactive changes to contract terms; refusal to conclude a written contract or exerting pressure to cut prices.
Whilst welcoming the Commission report of 29 January 2016, Members noted that its conclusions do not pave the way for an EU-level framework to tackle unfair trading practices at EU level .
Eliminate unfair trading practices : Parliament recognised that UTPs result primarily from income and power imbalances in the food supply chain and must be urgently addressed in order to ameliorate the situation for farmers in the food sector. These practices have serious negative consequences for farmers, such as lower profits, higher-than-estimated costs, food overproduction and wastage, and financial planning difficulties and ultimately reduce consumer choice.
Limits to the Supply Chain Initiative (SCI) : Parliament noted that the setting up of SCI national platforms of organisations and businesses in the food supply chain to encourage dialogue between the parties, promote the introduction and exchange of fair trading practices and seek to put an end to UTPs, but wonders whether they are really effective. It pointed out, however, that some national platforms have not delivered on these objectives.
Parliament questions the unwavering support expressed in the Commission’s report for the SCI , given its limitations. It reiterated farmers’ reluctance to participate on account of : (i) the lack of trust, (ii) the restrictions on anonymous complaints, (iii) the lack of statutory power, (iv) the inability to apply meaningful sanctions, (v) the absence of adequate mechanisms to combat well-documented UTPs, and (vi) concerns about imbalances in the nature of enforcement mechanisms that have not been taken adequately into account.
Setting up effective and robust enforcement mechanisms: Parliament stated that the Supply Chain Initiative (SCI) and other national and EU voluntary systems (codes of good practice, voluntary dispute settlement mechanisms) should be developed further and promoted as an addition to effective and robust enforcement mechanisms at Member State level, ensuring that complaints can be lodged anonymously and establishing dissuasive penalties , together with EU-level coordination.
It proposed that improving the functioning of the SCI via, inter alia, independent governance, confidentiality and anonymity , and effective enforcement and deterrence, could, as a first step, increase farmer interest, support, and, thereby, participation.
EU Framework proposals : Members strongly believe strongly that the definition of UTPs outlined by the Commission and relevant stakeholders should be taken into account, along with an open list of UTPs, when submitting a proposal for an EU-level framework.
Anonymity and confidentiality should be incorporated into any future legislative initiative, or initiatives, in this area.
The Commission should submit a proposal, or proposals, for an EU-level framework laying down general principles and taking proper account of national circumstances and best practices to tackle UTPs in the entire food supply chain in order to ensure a level playing-field across Member States.
In general, Parliament is of the opinion that framework legislation at EU level is necessary in order to tackle UTPs and to ensure that European farmers and consumers have the opportunity to benefit from fair selling and buying conditions. This European framework legislation must not lower the level of protection in countries that have adopted national legislation to combat business-to-business UTPs.
Moreover, Directive 2011/7/EU on combating late payments in commercial transactions should be fully and consistently enforced 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.
Public agencies and dedicated bodies : Member States should establish or recognise public agencies or dedicated bodies like an adjudicator , at national level with responsibility for enforcing action to combat unfair practices in the food supply chain.
Public agencies of this kind can facilitate enforcement, e.g. by being empowered to open and conduct investigations on their own initiative and on the basis of informal information or complaints dealt with on a confidential basis (thus overcoming the ‘fear factor’), and can act as a mediator between the parties involved.
Members called on the Commission, the Member States and other relevant stakeholders to facilitate the incorporation of farmers' organisations (including POs and APOs) within the scope of national enforcement bodies governing the food supply chain, primarily by securing the anonymity of complaints and an effective sanctions regime.
Taking into account the specific features of each market : Parliament considered that any proposed 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, in order to avoid adopting a 'one-size-fits-all' approach.
Raising consumer awareness : the resolution called on all stakeholders involved in food supply chain management to step up transparency in the overall food supply chain and to increase consumer information through more appropriate product labelling and certification schemes , in order to enable consumers to make fully-informed choices about available products, and to act accordingly.
Lastly, Parliament called for increased transparency and provision of information within the supply chain and for the strengthening of bodies and market information tools such as the European Food Price Monitoring Tool and the Milk Market Observatory, with a view to supplying farmers and POs with accurate and timely market data.
The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection adopted the own-initiative report by Edward CZESAK (ECR, PL) on unfair trading practices in the food supply chain in response to the Commission's report of 29 January 2016 on unfair business-to-business trading practices in the food supply chain.
The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, exercising the prerogative of an associated committee in line with Article 54 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament , was also consulted to give an opinion on the report.
Members recalled that unfair trading practices (UTPs) are a serious problem, occurring in many sectors of the economy. However, the problem is particularly evident in the food supply chain , having adverse effects on the weakest link in the chain. The problem is attested to by all entities in the food supply chain and by many national competition authorities.
UTPs principally consist of: payment delays; restricted access to the market; unilateral or retroactive changes to contract terms; refusal to conclude a written contract or exerting pressure to cut prices.
Whilst welcoming the Commission report of 29 January 2016, Members notes that its conclusions do not pave the way for an EU-level framework to tackle unfair trading practices at EU level .
Eliminate unfair trading practices : Members recognised that UTPs result primarily from income and power imbalances in the food supply chain and must be urgently addressed in order to ameliorate the situation for farmers in the food sector. These practices have serious negative consequences for farmers, such as lower profits, higher-than-estimated costs, food overproduction and wastage, and financial planning difficulties and ultimately reduce consumer choice.
Members stated that the Supply Chain Initiative (SCI) and other national and EU voluntary systems (codes of good practice, voluntary dispute settlement mechanisms) should be developed further and promoted as an addition to effective and robust enforcement mechanisms at Member State level , ensuring that complaints can be lodged anonymously and establishing dissuasive penalties , together with EU-level coordination.
Members proposed that improving the functioning of the SCI via, inter alia, independent governance , confidentiality and anonymity , and effective enforcement and deterrence, could, as a first step, increase farmer interest, support, and, thereby, participation.
Definition of unfair trading practices : Members believe strongly that the definition of UTPs outlined by the Commission and relevant stakeholders should be taken into account, along with an open list of UTPs, when submitting a proposal for an EU-level framework .
Anonymity and confidentiality should be incorporated into any future legislative initiative, or initiatives, in this area.
The Commission should submit a proposal, or proposals, for an EU-level framework laying down general principles and taking proper account of national circumstances and best practices to tackle UTPs in the entire food supply chain in order to ensure a level playing-field across Member States. Moreover, Directive 2011/7/EU should be fully and consistently enforced.
Public agencies and dedicated bodies : Member States should establish or recognise public agencies or dedicated bodies like an adjudicator , at national level with responsibility for enforcing action to combat unfair practices in the food supply chain.
Public agencies of this kind can facilitate enforcement, e.g. by being empowered to open and conduct investigations on their own initiative and on the basis of informal information or complaints dealt with on a confidential basis (thus overcoming the ‘fear factor’), and can act as a mediator between the parties involved.
Members called on the Commission, the Member States and other relevant stakeholders to facilitate the incorporation of farmers' organisations (including POs and APOs) within the scope of national enforcement bodies governing the food supply chain, primarily by securing the anonymity of complaints and an effective sanctions regime.
Taking into account the specific features of each market : Members considered that any proposed 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, in order to avoid adopting a 'one-size-fits-all' approach.
Raising consumer awareness : the report called on all stakeholders involved in food supply chain management to step up transparency in the overall food supply chain and to increase consumer information through more appropriate product labelling and certification schemes , in order to enable consumers to make fully-informed choices about available products, and to act accordingly.
Lastly, the report called for increased transparency and provision of information within the supply chain and for the strengthening of bodies and market information tools such as the European Food Price Monitoring Tool and the Milk Market Observatory, with a view to supplying farmers and POs with accurate and timely market data.
PURPOSE: to present a report on unfair business-to-business trading practices in the food supply chain.
BACKGROUND: in July 2014, the Commission adopted a Communication on tackling unfair trading practices (UTPs) in the business-to-business food supply chain . UTPs are practices that deviate grossly from good commercial conduct, are contrary to good faith and fair dealing and are unilaterally imposed by one trading partner on another.
The Communication explained why the market structure of the food supply chain makes it particularly vulnerable to UTPs and described the damage that UTPs can do to operators with low bargaining power. To address the problem of UTPs, the Communication encouraged operators in the European food supply chain to participate in voluntary schemes aimed at promoting best practices and reducing UTPs, and emphasised the importance of effective and independent enforcement at national level.
In 2015, the discussion intensified, not least because of the difficulties faced by European farmers caused by falling prices for certain agricultural commodities, in particular dairy products and pigmeat. Demand for a number of products weakened significantly, and this was aggravated by the Russian import ban on agricultural products. At the same time, world production increased, leading to a general oversupply. While UTPs are not the cause of the recent price declines, the low prices have made farmers more vulnerable to potential unfair behaviour by their trading partners.
In response to the challenges faced by farmers, the Ministers of Agriculture of seven countries issued a joint statement asking the Commission to take its analysis on UTPs further and propose EU legislation to address UTPs.
The Commission responded to the farming crisis with a package of wide-ranging measures . Many of these target the dairy sector, which is particularly affected by the drop in prices. This report will not cover the UTP-specific measures already adopted for particular sectors. This report concentrates on the existing frameworks for tackling UTPs.
CONTENT: the report has two main elements:
(1) an assessment of the existing regulatory and enforcement frameworks in the Member States;
(2) an assessment of the impact of the voluntary EU-wide Supply Chain Initiative (SCI) and the national SCI platforms that have been set up.
Main conclusions : this report concludes that measures to combat UTPs have developed significantly in recent years.
Regulatory frameworks : many Member States, especially those where the issue is more prominent, have recently introduced legislative and enforcement measures that broadly meet the criteria for effective frameworks against UTPs. In total, more than 20 Member States have introduced legislation or are planning to do so in the near future. The fact that the large majority of Member States have introduced regulatory measures and public enforcement systems is a very important development. Some Member States have gone further than others, but almost all the legislative enforcement systems introduced go beyond the normal judicial redress through courts, thereby addressing the ‘fear factor’ of the potential victims of UTPs.
Therefore, given the positive developments in parts of the food chain and since different approaches could address UTPs effectively, th e Commission does not see the added value of a specific harmonised regulatory approach at EU level at this stage . However the Commission recognises that, since in many Member States legislation was introduced only very recently, results must be closely monitored, and reassessed, if necessary.
Belgium and the Netherlands do not have a regulatory framework, but have opted for a national voluntary platform. The few remaining Member States without UTP legislation could benefit from following their example and considering at least a national voluntary platform.
Voluntary initiatives : as regards the EU-wide Supply Chain Initiative (SCI), the report noted that the SCI has already accomplished some achievements but there is still room for improvement. In order to increase the initiative's credibility and effectiveness in tackling UTPs, the Commission proposes a discussion with the relevant stakeholders on how to improve the SCI under the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain.
Several national platforms have been established under the EU-wide initiative which is another positive signal. This report has found that voluntary initiatives seem to work better in some countries than in others. Belgium's initiative is an example of where a voluntary platform seems to be an efficient approach to tackling UTPs, meaning a regulatory system does not seem to be required. In other countries, for example the United Kingdom, voluntary initiatives were less successful, confirming the need for regulatory measures and effective independent enforcement.
Next steps : the Commission will continue to monitor closely the situation regarding both the voluntary and regulatory frameworks. The Commission’s High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain will continue the dialogue with operators, Member States and other stakeholders on ensuring the promotion of good practices, the emergence of national platforms and, in particular, the enhancement of the SC. The objective is to improve awareness of the SCI, especially among SMEs, ensure the impartiality of the SCI's governance structure, allow alleged victims of UTPs to complain confidentially and grant investigatory and sanctioning powers to independent bodies.
PURPOSE: to tackle unfair trading practices (UTPs) in the business-to-business food supply chain.
BACKGROUND: cross-border trade between EU Member States now accounts for about 20% of total food and beverage production in the EU.
UTPs may have harmful effects, especially on SMEs in the food supply chain. UTPs can broadly be defined as practices that grossly deviate from good commercial conduct, are contrary to good faith and fair dealing and are unilaterally imposed by one trading partner on another.
Although it is difficult to assess its full extent and frequency, the problem of UTPs has been acknowledged by all stakeholders in the food supply chain. For example, in an EU-wide survey among suppliers in the food chain, 96% of the respondents said that they had already been subject to at least one form of UTPs. 83% of the respondents asserting that they were subject to UTPs said that UTPs increased their costs and 77% stated that UTPs reduced their revenues.
The possible repercussions of UTPs at EU level have not only raised concerns in the European Commission but also in the European Parliament . In January 2012, the Parliament adopted a resolution which highlighted the European dimension of the imbalances in the food supply chain which can lead to unfair practices. This resolution identified a list of specific UTPs and called for them to be subject to specific regulation, supervision and sanctions. In order to better understand the issue, the Commission published a Green Paper on UTPs in January 2013.
The CAP reform, notably through the new single Common Market Organisation , includes elements which aim at reducing the bargaining power gap between farmers and other parties in the food supply chain. A number of Member States have addressed UTPs at national level using many different approaches. Therefore, there remains a wide divergence in the way UTP issues in food supply chains are addressed in the EU.
The Commission considers that the potential benefits of reducing UTPs could be substantial, especially for SMEs and microenterprises as these are more likely to be subject to UTPs and their effects than large companies are.
CONTENT: the Commission communication aims at contributing to fair and sustainable commercial relationships and a level playing field for market participants in the food supply chain through helping to reduce the harmful effects and possible cross-border obstacles caused by UTPs , especially for SMEs.
This Communication does not foresee regulatory action at EU level and does not prescribe a single solution to address the issue of UTPs. It suggests a combination of voluntary and regulatory frameworks , identifying UTPs and principles to address them, taking into account different national circumstances and approaches.
The strategy laid down by the Commission follows a two-pillared approach:
1) The adoption of the Supply Chain Initiative : the Supply Chain Initiative was developed in the context of the Commission’s High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain which is composed of national authorities and key stakeholder representatives at EU level from the supply and retail sides of the food sector.
In November 2011, all market representatives involved in the Forum’s working party on UTPs jointly agreed on a set of principles of good practice in vertical relationships in the food supply chain. These principles include: (i) predictability of changes in contract terms; (ii) responsibility for own entrepreneurial risk; (iii) justifiability of requests and charges. In a second step, a voluntary framework for implementing the principles of good practice (the Supply Chain Initiative) was launched in September 2013.
The Commission encourages all undertakings and relevant organisations in the food supply chain to sign up to a voluntary initiative addressing UTPs, in particular the Supply Chain Initiative . The governance group of the Supply Chain Initiative should continue its efforts to drive and facilitate the creation of national platforms in each EU Member State.
The Commission will continue to support the exchange of best practices between Member States, e.g. by organising workshops with experts from national administrations.
2) To guarantee respect at national level : if the weaker party in a commercial relationship is economically dependent on its stronger trading party, it may refrain from asking redress for a UTP through court litigation or voluntary resolution mechanisms.
This is why the Commission invites Member States to: (i) assess the effectiveness and credibility of their available mechanisms for the enforcement of rules against UTPs; (ii) consider whether further procedural or organisational measures may be appropriate, drawing on best practice in other Member States.
Particular attention should be given to the capacity to preserve the confidentiality of individual companies submitting complaints and the possibility to conduct investigations.
The Commission will monitor and assess the progress made by evaluating (i) the actual impact of the Supply Chain Initiative and its national platforms and (ii) the enforcement mechanisms set up by Member States to increase all parties' trust and confidence in the proper functioning of a sustainable food supply chain.
The Commission will present a report to the Council and the European Parliament at the end of 2015. In light of this report, the Commission will decide whether further action should be taken at EU level to address these issues.
Documents
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2016)612
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament: T8-0250/2016
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Committee report tabled for plenary: A8-0173/2016
- Committee opinion: PE564.944
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE578.464
- Document attached to the procedure: COM(2016)0032
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE571.610
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE567.733
- Committee draft report: PE560.916
- Contribution: COM(2014)0472
- Contribution: COM(2014)0472
- Non-legislative basic document published: EUR-Lex
- Non-legislative basic document published: COM(2014)0472
- Committee draft report: PE560.916
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE567.733
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE571.610
- Document attached to the procedure: COM(2016)0032 EUR-Lex
- Committee opinion: PE564.944
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE578.464
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2016)612
- Contribution: COM(2014)0472
- Contribution: COM(2014)0472
Activities
- Edward CZESAK
Plenary Speeches (2)
- Ivan JAKOVČIĆ
Plenary Speeches (2)
- Marijana PETIR
Plenary Speeches (2)
- Olga SEHNALOVÁ
Plenary Speeches (2)
- Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS
Plenary Speeches (2)
- Igor ŠOLTES
Plenary Speeches (2)
- Dubravka ŠUICA
Plenary Speeches (2)
- Louis ALIOT
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Marina ALBIOL GUZMÁN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Jean ARTHUIS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Marie-Christine ARNAUTU
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Jonathan ARNOTT
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Zoltán BALCZÓ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Zigmantas BALČYTIS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Hugues BAYET
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Xabier BENITO ZILUAGA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- José BLANCO LÓPEZ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Marie-Christine BOUTONNET
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Renata BRIANO
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Steeve BRIOIS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Alain CADEC
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Nicola CAPUTO
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Alberto CIRIO
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Jane COLLINS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Andi CRISTEA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Javier COUSO PERMUY
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Daniel DALTON
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Michel DANTIN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Rachida DATI
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Angélique DELAHAYE
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Marielle DE SARNEZ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Mireille D'ORNANO
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Georgios EPITIDEIOS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Edouard FERRAND
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Lorenzo FONTANA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Ashley FOX
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Doru-Claudian FRUNZULICĂ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Ildikó GÁLL-PELCZ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Francisco de Paula GAMBUS MILLET
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Elisabetta GARDINI
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Arne GERICKE
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Michela GIUFFRIDA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Sylvie GODDYN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Beata GOSIEWSKA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Bruno GOLLNISCH
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Tania GONZÁLEZ PEÑAS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Françoise GROSSETÊTE
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Antanas GUOGA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Takis HADJIGEORGIOU
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Brian HAYES
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Marian HARKIN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Filiz HYUSMENOVA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Cătălin Sorin IVAN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Ramón JÁUREGUI ATONDO
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Philippe JUVIN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Barbara KAPPEL
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Afzal KHAN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Jaromír KOHLÍČEK
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Elisabeth KÖSTINGER
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Béla KOVÁCS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Constance LE GRIP
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Marine LE PEN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Paloma LÓPEZ BERMEJO
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Monica MACOVEI
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Louis-Joseph MANSCOUR
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Vladimír MAŇKA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Ivana MALETIĆ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Andrejs MAMIKINS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Jiří MAŠTÁLKA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Dominique MARTIN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Notis MARIAS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Valentinas MAZURONIS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Jean-Luc MÉLENCHON
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Miroslav MIKOLÁŠIK
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Louis MICHEL
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Marlene MIZZI
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Luigi MORGANO
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Sophie MONTEL
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Alessia Maria MOSCA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- József NAGY
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Momchil NEKOV
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Norica NICOLAI
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Franz OBERMAYR
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Margot PARKER
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Florian PHILIPPOT
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Andrej PLENKOVIĆ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Miroslav POCHE
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Salvatore Domenico POGLIESE
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Franck PROUST
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Laurenţiu REBEGA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Julia REID
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Robert ROCHEFORT
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Liliana RODRIGUES
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Claude ROLIN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Virginie ROZIÈRE
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Fernando RUAS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Tokia SAÏFI
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Daciana Octavia SÂRBU
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Lola SÁNCHEZ CALDENTEY
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Jasenko SELIMOVIC
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Remo SERNAGIOTTO
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Czesław Adam SIEKIERSKI
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Maria Lidia SENRA RODRÍGUEZ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Siôn SIMON
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Branislav ŠKRIPEK
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Monika SMOLKOVÁ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Davor ŠKRLEC
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Csaba SÓGOR
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Bart STAES
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Catherine STIHLER
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Beatrix von STORCH
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Pavel SVOBODA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Patricija ŠULIN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Eleftherios SYNADINOS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Adam SZEJNFELD
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Tibor SZANYI
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Hannu TAKKULA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Claudia ȚAPARDEL
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Pavel TELIČKA
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Mihai ŢURCANU
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Kazimierz Michał UJAZDOWSKI
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Derek VAUGHAN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Miguel VIEGAS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Lieve WIERINCK
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Sotirios ZARIANOPOULOS
Plenary Speeches (1)
Votes
A8-0173/2016 - Edward Czesak - Résolution #
Amendments | Dossier |
614 |
2015/2065(INI)
2015/09/18
IMCO
272 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
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 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 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.
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 #
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
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas the food trade has an increasingly significant cross-border dimension
Amendment 110 #
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.
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8.
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
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8.
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 #
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 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas the food trade has an increasingly significant cross-border dimension and
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 #
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 #
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
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
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 #
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
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
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Points out that UTPs imposed by
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 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Points out that UTPs imposed by parties in a stronger bargaining position c
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;
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.
Amendment 141 #
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 142 #
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 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
Amendment 150 #
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
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Believes that
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
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
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Believes that
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 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 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 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
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Acknowledges, nonetheless, that voluntary and self-regulatory schemes
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 12. Acknowledges, nonetheless, that voluntary and self-regulatory schemes
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,
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
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
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
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
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) 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;
Amendment 183 #
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;
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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
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
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Reaffirms that free and fair competition, freedom to contract and
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
Amendment 2 #
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
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Points out that taking advantage of a stronger bargaining position to impose UTPs
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Points out th
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16.
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
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 #
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.
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Urges the Commission to
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Urges the Commission to submit
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Urges the Commission to submit specific proposals for
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17.
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17.
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17.
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
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
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 #
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 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
Amendment 231 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Suggests that work should begin
Amendment 232 #
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;
Amendment 233 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18.
Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Suggests that
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Suggests that work should begin on EU rules on
Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Suggests that work should begin on EU rules on the establishment or recognition of
Amendment 237 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18.
Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Suggests that work should begin
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
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
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
Amendment 242 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Believes strongly that a
Amendment 243 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19.
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
Amendment 245 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Believes
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 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Believes
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 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19.
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas UTPs occur where there
Amendment 250 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 Amendment 251 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Calls for due account to be taken,
Amendment 252 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Calls for due account to be taken, when
Amendment 253 #
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
Amendment 254 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Calls for due account to be taken, when drafting
Amendment 255 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Calls for due account to be taken, when
Amendment 256 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Calls for due account to be taken
Amendment 257 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Calls for due account to be taken
Amendment 258 #
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
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 #
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
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 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
Amendment 263 #
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;
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.
Amendment 267 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Calls on the Commission to assess the voluntary and self-regulatory schemes put in place to date
Amendment 268 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21.
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
Amendment 270 #
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 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 a (new) Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas UTPs occur where there is a lack of economic balance in trading relations between
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
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
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas unfair practices
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas unfair practices may have harmful consequences for the
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas unfair practices may have harmful consequences for the food supply chain, which in turn
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
Amendment 4 #
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
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas UTPs
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) 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
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas SMEs and microenterprises are particularly vulnerable to UTPs and are
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas unfair trading practices (UTPs) are a
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 #
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,
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Recital J J. whereas UTPs are covered only in part by competition law
Amendment 59 #
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
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 #
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'
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution Recital K K. whereas the ‘fear factor'
Amendment 65 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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.
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 77 #
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
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
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Welcomes the
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 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3.
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 #
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.
Amendment 94 #
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
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
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5.
source: 567.733
2015/09/23
AGRI
195 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
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
Amendment 101 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 adaptation at EU level; while being adopted as homogeneously as possible, this model must always take into account the diversity of the Member States and what each has to offer;
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 #
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 adaptation at EU level; calls for independent bodies to be set up to track intermediate and final value added;
Amendment 111 #
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
Amendment 112 #
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
Amendment 113 #
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 in order to bring equity into the food supply chain, particularly for farmers, primary producers but also for consumers; notes in particular the Groceries Code Adjudicator in the UK as a potential model for adaptation in a strengthened form with enforcement powers at EU level;
Amendment 114 #
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 or the Food Supply Chain Commissioner in France as a potential model for adaptation at EU level;
Amendment 115 #
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;
Amendment 116 #
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;
Amendment 117 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Notes that
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;
Amendment 119 #
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 #
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 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 a
Amendment 121 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 122 #
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 a
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 #
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 adaptation at EU level; the model in the UK fails to fully address the challenges and does require a wider remit to address farmers concerns.
Amendment 125 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Notes that several Member States have initiated actions in
Amendment 126 #
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;
Amendment 127 #
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 adaptation at EU level; notes that the implementation of a range of regulation has led to an unequal distribution of surpluses in various countries;
Amendment 128 #
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
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Notes that several Member States have
Amendment 131 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recognises that CAP reform introduced
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 #
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 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
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 #
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
Amendment 148 #
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Believes that framework legislation at
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Believes that framework legislation at EU level is
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;
Amendment 153 #
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
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Believes that a common framework
Amendment 157 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 158 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 159 #
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
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recognises that
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
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 #
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Argues that
Amendment 171 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Argues that such legislation would complement the SCI and protect
Amendment 172 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Argues that such legislation
Amendment 173 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Argues that
Amendment 174 #
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Argues that such
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 #
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recognises that CAP reform introduced measures aimed at addressing the bargaining power gap between
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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-
Amendment 36 #
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
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 #
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,
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 #
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
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Points to the limitations of the Supply Chain Initiative (SCI), and specifically the absence of
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 44 #
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 #
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 #
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
Amendment 50 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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.
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 58 #
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, which are increasingly represented by superstore chains with central purchasing bodies;
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
Amendment 60 #
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
Amendment 61 #
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; believes, therefore, that the appropriate legal safeguards must be provided in the mainstream judicial system;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 64 #
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.
Amendment 66 #
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
Amendment 67 #
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; stresses that the national authorities should have effective mechanisms for response to complaints about UTPs;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Doubts whether voluntary initiatives are adequate
Amendment 69 #
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; any changes to the current framework require an appropriate promotional and educational initiative to inform farmers.
Amendment 7 #
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.
Amendment 71 #
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.
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Doubts whether voluntary initiatives are adequate
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Doubts whether voluntary initiatives are adequate for addressing UTPs
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. D
Amendment 76 #
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
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 #
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 80 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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.
Amendment 88 #
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;
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
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
Amendment 92 #
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Questions the Commission’s unwavering support for the SCI, given the reluctance of farmers to participate; regrets the
Amendment 94 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Questions the Commission’s unwavering support for the SCI, given th
Amendment 95 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Questions the Commission
Amendment 96 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 97 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Que
Amendment 98 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Questions the Commission
Amendment 99 #
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-
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
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3.
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
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Reaffirms that free and fair competition, freedom to contract and
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Urges the Commission to submit without delay specific proposals for
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
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
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
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’
Amendment 9 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 17 d (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 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 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
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 #
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 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, as well as in the upstream to production;
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,
Amendment 296 #
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 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 K. whereas the ‘fear factor'
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 2. Welcomes the
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 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 309 #
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.
Amendment 311 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3.
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
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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) Amendment 321 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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.
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 #
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.
Amendment 336 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Welcomes the
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
Amendment 339 #
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) 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;
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 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 345 #
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, with the damaging effects of UTPs impacting not just on weaker parties in contracts, but also on consumers and national economic interests;
Amendment 346 #
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 347 #
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,
Amendment 349 #
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 #
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 #
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
Amendment 353 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12.
Amendment 354 #
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 #
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
Amendment 357 #
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 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
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 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 all food producers, suppliers and distributors regardless of their size;
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 #
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.
Amendment 370 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17.
Amendment 371 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17.
Amendment 372 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19.
Amendment 385 #
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 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 Amendment 388 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20.
Amendment 389 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Calls for due account to be taken
Amendment 390 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Calls for due account to be taken, when drafting
Amendment 391 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Calls on the Commission to
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) Amendment 396 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 e (new) 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) 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 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 e (new) 22e. As a follow up to the Commission's report, calls on the Commission, Member States and other relevant stakeholders to facilitate the incorporation of farmers' organisations (including POs and APOs) within the scope of national enforcement bodies governing the food supply chain, primarily by securing the anonymity of complaints and an effective sanctions regime.
source: 578.464
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
committees/0/associated |
Old
TrueNew
|
committees/1 |
Old
New
|
committees/2 |
Old
New
|
committees/3 |
Old
New
|
docs/7 |
|
docs/7 |
|
docs/8 |
|
docs/8 |
|
events/5/docs |
|
committees/0/shadows/3 |
|
docs/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE560.916New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/IMCO-PR-560916_EN.html |
docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE567.733New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/IMCO-AM-567733_EN.html |
docs/2/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE571.610New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/IMCO-AM-571610_EN.html |
docs/4/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE564.944&secondRef=03New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AGRI-AD-564944_EN.html |
docs/5/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE578.464New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/IMCO-AM-578464_EN.html |
events/1/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Committee referral announced in Parliament |
events/3/type |
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee |
events/4 |
|
events/4 |
|
events/5/docs |
|
events/7 |
|
events/7 |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 159
|
procedure/Other legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 159
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
docs/6/body |
EC
|
events/4/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2016-0173&language=ENNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2016-0173_EN.html |
events/7/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2016-0250New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2016-0250_EN.html |
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
activities |
|
commission |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/3 |
|
committees/3 |
|
docs |
|
events |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150New
Rules of Procedure EP 159 |
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
Old
IMCO/8/02015New
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 54
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
|
procedure/subject |
Old
New
|
activities/4/docs |
|
activities/4/type |
Old
Debate in plenary scheduledNew
Debate in Parliament |
activities/5/docs |
|
activities/5/type |
Old
Vote in plenary scheduledNew
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading |
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stageNew
Procedure completed |
activities/3/docs/0/text |
|
activities/4/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
Debate in plenary scheduled |
activities/5 |
|
activities/3/docs |
|
activities/3 |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage |
activities/3/date |
Old
2016-05-26T00:00:00New
2016-06-06T00:00:00 |
activities/2 |
|
activities/3/date |
Old
2016-06-06T00:00:00New
2016-05-26T00:00:00 |
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
|