2017/2191(INI) Annual report on competition policy
Next event: Commission response to text adopted in plenary 2018/09/10 more...
Lead committee dossier:
Next event: Commission response to text adopted in plenary 2018/09/10 more...
- Results of vote in Parliament 2018/04/19
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading 2018/04/19
- End of procedure in Parliament 2018/04/19
- Debate in Parliament 2018/04/18
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading 2018/03/01
- Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading 2018/02/21
Progress: Procedure completed
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead | ECON |
TREMOSA I BALCELLS Ramon ( ALDE)
|
STOLOJAN Theodor Dumitru ( PPE),
SANT Alfred ( S&D),
LOONES Sander ( ECR),
LÓPEZ BERMEJO Paloma ( GUE/NGL),
REIMON Michel ( Verts/ALE),
KAPPEL Barbara ( ENF)
|
| Committee Opinion | AGRI |
SZANYI Tibor ( S&D)
|
Bas BELDER ( ECR),
Michel DANTIN ( PPE),
Miguel VIEGAS ( GUE/NGL)
|
| Committee Opinion | IMCO |
SCHALDEMOSE Christel ( S&D)
|
Jan Philipp ALBRECHT ( Verts/ALE),
Dennis de JONG ( GUE/NGL)
|
| Committee Opinion | INTA |
SAÏFI Tokia ( PPE)
|
Sander LOONES ( ECR),
Anne-Marie MINEUR ( GUE/NGL),
Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS ( ALDE)
|
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54
Legal Basis:
RoP 54Subjects
Events
2018/09/10
Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2018/04/19
EP - Results of vote in Parliament
Documents
2018/04/19
EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details
The European Parliament adopted by 445 votes to 104, with 38 abstentions, a resolution on the annual report on competition policy.
Members welcomed the report on competition policy 2016 of 31 May 2017, which shows that, in a fair competitive environment, investment and innovation are key for the future of Europe.
While strongly supporting the independence of the Commission and national competition authorities in their mission to shape and enforce effectively EU competition rules, Members called on the Commission to ensure regular information and exchanges with Parliament on competition policy, as provided for by the Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA) between the Commission and Parliament.
Improving the application of competition rules : Parliament called on the Commission to monitor the implementation of legislation linked to the completion of the single market, such as in the energy (including self-consumption) and transport sectors, the digital market, and retail financial services (including insurances), in order to improve the enforcement of EU competition rules and achieve a consistent application in Member States.
Members noted, however, that state aid can be an indispensable tool to secure the necessary infrastructure and supply for both the energy and transport sectors, and can be necessary to ensure the delivery of services of general economic interest (SGEI). They stressed that accessing cash from ATMs is an essential public service that must be provided without any discriminatory, anti-competitive or unfair practices.
The Commission was asked to:
reallocate adequate financial and human resources to DG Competition; continue its efforts to prevent the misuse of EU funds and in public procurement which is one of the government activities most vulnerable to corruption; adopt indicative guidelines to shorten the duration of antitrust investigations and proceedings for abuse of a dominant market position; examine carefully, in connection with a possible reform of the Merger Regulation, whether current assessment procedures take sufficient account of circumstances on digital markets.
Tax competition : Parliament reiterated that fair tax competition is important for the integrity of the internal market and that all market players, including digital companies , should pay their fair share of taxes where their profit is generated and compete on equal terms. It stressed the need to tax companies on the basis of their genuine activity in Member States.
Distortive anti-competitive practices, such as selective tax advantages, should be eliminated. Furthermore, the Commission should have access to all the relevant information exchanged between the national tax authorities, in order to assess the compatibility of their tax rulings and arrangements with EU competition rules.
Digital market : Members welcomed the Commission's decision against illegal tax benefits granted to Amazon and stressed that timely recovery of illegal aid is essential. They noted the Commission's statement of objections and its preliminary findings that Google has abused its dominant market position as a search engine by giving illegal advantages to another of its products, this being its price comparison shopping service. The Commission is called on to ensure that this company effectively implements corrective measures as soon as possible.
In general, Parliament stressed the specific challenge that digital businesses represented for competition and tax authorities, in particular as regards algorithms, artificial intelligence or the value of data. They encouraged the Commission to develop policy and enforcement instruments dealing with the emergence of digital economies.
Financial services : Parliament has asked the Commission to closely monitor activities in the retail banking and financial services sectors. It invited the Commission to explain under what conditions it was possible to use public funds to bail out major banks. It considered it a priority to ensure that State aid rules will be strictly respected when dealing with future banking crises, so that the burden of rescuing banks does not fall on taxpayers.
Members also stressed that access to cash via ATMs is an essential public service that must be provided without any anti-competitive practices being applied.
Transport sector : the Commission was asked to ensure fair competition in the transport sector in order to complete the single market, taking account of the public interest and environmental considerations and safeguarding the connectivity of insular and peripheral regions.
Members called on the Commission to:
clarify state aid rules for European and non-European airlines , with a view to establishing a level playing field between their operations targeting European and non-European markets. The same competition rules should be applied to all air carriers when flying to or from the EU and to both national and low-cost carriers; carefully assess all airline merger deals in accordance with the EU’s merger control procedure, including their impact on market competition; complete the implementation of the Single European Railway Area and to verify that every Member State has a strong and independent national antitrust regulator.
International cooperation : Parliament stressed the importance of international cooperation for the effective application of competition law principles in an era of globalisation. It asked the Commission to include a chapter on competition in international trade and investment agreements.
Members called for trade defence instruments to be updated to make them stronger, faster and more effective. They welcomed the new method of calculating anti-dumping duties by assessing market distortions in third countries. They emphasised, furthermore, the particular importance of the anti-subsidy instrument in tackling unfair global competition, and establishing a level playing field with EU state aid rules.
The resolution emphasised that reciprocity must be one of the key principles underpinning Union commercial policy, with a view to ensuring a level playing field for EU firms, in particular in the area of public procurement.
Documents
2018/04/19
EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2018/04/18
EP - Debate in Parliament
Documents
2018/03/01
EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Details
The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs adopted the own-initiative report by Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS (ADLE, ES) on the annual report on competition policy. Members welcomed the report on competition policy 2016 of 31 May 2017, which shows that, in a fair competitive environment, investment and innovation are key for the future of Europe.
They strongly supported the independence of the Commission and national competition authorities in their mission to shape and enforce effectively EU competition rules and asked the Commission to ensure regular information and exchanges with Parliament on competition policy, as provided for by the Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA) between the Commission and Parliament.
Improving the application of competition rules : the report called on the Commission to monitor the implementation of legislation linked to the completion of the single market, such as in the energy (including self-consumption) and transport sectors, the digital market, and retail financial services, in order to improve the enforcement of EU competition rules and achieve a consistent application in Member States.
Members noted, however, that state aid can be an indispensable tool to secure the necessary infrastructure and supply for both the energy and transport sectors, and can be necessary to ensure the delivery of services of general economic interest (SGEI). They stressed that accessing cash from ATMs is an essential public service that must be provided without any discriminatory, anti-competitive or unfair practices.
The Commission was asked to:
reallocate adequate financial and human resources to DG Competition; continue its efforts to prevent the misuse of EU funds and stimulate accountability in public procurement; adopt indicative guidelines to shorten the duration of antitrust investigations and proceedings for abuse of a dominant market position; examine carefully, in connection with a possible reform of the Merger Regulation, whether current assessment procedures take sufficient account of circumstances on digital markets.
Tax competition : Members reiterated that fair tax competition is important for the integrity of the internal market and that all market players, including digital companies , should pay their fair share of taxes where their profit is generated and compete on equal terms. Distortive anti-competitive practices, such as selective tax advantages , should be eliminated. Furthermore, the Commission should have access to all the relevant information exchanged between the national tax authorities, in order to assess the compatibility of their tax rulings and arrangements with EU competition rules.
Digital market : Members strongly welcomed the Commission’s decision against the illegal tax benefits granted to Amazon and stressed that the timely recovery of illegal aid is essential. They took note of the Commission’s statement of objections and its preliminary conclusion that Google has abused its market dominance as a search engine by giving an illegal advantage to another of its products, this being its comparison shopping service. The Commission was called upon to: (i) ensure that the company implements the remedy effectively and promptly; (ii) diligently conduct all other pending antitrust investigations, such as Android, AdSense, and investigations in the travel and local search sectors, where Google is allegedly abusing its dominance; (iii) develop policy and enforcement instruments dealing with the emergence of digital economies.
Transport sector : the Commission was asked to ensure fair competition in the transport sector in order to complete the single market, taking account of the public interest and environmental considerations and safeguarding the connectivity of insular and peripheral regions.
Members called on the Commission to clarify state aid rules for European and non-European airlines , with a view to establishing a level playing field between their operations targeting European and non-European markets. The report stated that the same competition rules should be applied to all air carriers when flying to or from the EU and to both national and low-cost carriers.
The Commission was invited to carefully assess all airline merger deals in accordance with the EU’s merger control procedure, including their impact on market competition. Members also asked the Commission to complete the implementation of the Single European Railway Area.
Trade defence instruments: Members called for trade defence instruments to be updated to make them stronger, faster and more effective. They welcomed the new method of calculating anti-dumping duties by assessing market distortions in third countries. They emphasised, furthermore, the particular importance of the anti-subsidy instrument in tackling unfair global competition, and establishing a level playing field with EU state aid rules.
The report emphasised that reciprocity must be one of the key principles underpinning Union commercial policy, with a view to ensuring a level playing field for EU firms, in particular in the area of public procurement. It called on the Commission to take account of the needs of SMEs when conducting negotiations and trade with a view to ensuring better access to markets and making the firms in question more competitive.
Lastly, Members stressed that the Commission must put increased effort into ensuring the consistent application of the EU competition rules in all Member States with regard to e-commerce-related business practices.
Documents
2018/02/21
EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
2017/12/06
EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2017/11/28
EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2017/11/27
EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2017/11/21
EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2017/10/23
EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2017/09/14
EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2017/09/07
EP - SZANYI Tibor (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in AGRI
2017/08/30
EP - SAÏFI Tokia (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in INTA
2017/06/21
EP - SCHALDEMOSE Christel (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in IMCO
2017/03/21
EP - TREMOSA I BALCELLS Ramon (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in ECON
Documents
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2018)474
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T8-0187/2018
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A8-0049/2018
- Committee opinion: PE610.575
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE615.197
- Committee opinion: PE610.689
- Committee opinion: PE609.616
- Committee draft report: PE612.214
- Committee draft report: PE612.214
- Committee opinion: PE609.616
- Committee opinion: PE610.689
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE615.197
- Committee opinion: PE610.575
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2018)474
Activities
- Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS
Plenary Speeches (2)
- 2016/11/22 Annual Report on Competition Policy (debate)
- 2016/11/22 Annual Report on Competition Policy (debate)
- Michel DANTIN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Doru-Claudian FRUNZULICĂ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 Annual Report on Competition Policy (debate)
- Brian HAYES
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 Annual Report on Competition Policy (debate)
- Sander LOONES
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Ivana MALETIĆ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Notis MARIAS
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Bernard MONOT
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Stanisław OŻÓG
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Dariusz ROSATI
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Theodor Dumitru STOLOJAN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 Annual Report on Competition Policy (debate)
- Tibor SZANYI
Plenary Speeches (1)
- 2016/11/22 Annual Report on Competition Policy (debate)
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 479 |
2017/2191(INI)
2017/10/05
IMCO
69 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that competition policy is closely interlinked with taxation policy; encourages the Commission to strengthen its efforts to tackle illegal state aid and taxation rules that distort competition in the internal market and particularly affect micro-enterprises; notes that it will also be necessary to ensure that precise and efficient competition rules are laid down, maintained and complied with;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Acknowledges the Commission’s efforts to combat unfair competition in high-profile cases against well-known companies, but stresses that the enforcement of fair competition in the case of SMEs is also of the utmost importance in order to boost jobs and ensure fair economic competition;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Acknowledges the Commission’s efforts to combat unfair competition
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Encourages the Commission to strengthen the supervision of national implementation of competition policy; is concerned that uneven enforcement of EU competition law by national authorities can result in varying outcomes, thus distorting competition in the internal market; welcomes in this regard the Commission’s proposal on the ECN+; stresses in this respect that the refusal of requested authority to enforce a decision imposing fines based on the exception under Art.25.5 of the proposal should always be duly justified and a system should be set up whereby potential disputes between authorities in such cases could be solved; furthermore asks the Commission to ensure that the notification of the start of formal investigative measure received from a national competition authority under Article 11.3 of Regulation 1/2003 is made available to the national competition authorities of the other Member States within the ECN;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Encourages the Commission to strengthen the supervision of national implementation of competition policy; is concerned that uneven enforcement of EU competition law by national authorities can result in varying outcomes, thus distorting competition in the internal market; stresses the need for national competition authorities to be independent and have adequate human and financial resources to perform their tasks effectively; welcomes in this regard the Commission’s proposal on the ECN+;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Encourages the Commission to strengthen the supervision of national implementation of competition policy in order to guarantee equal and fair competition conditions for undertakings; is concerned that uneven enforcement of EU competition law by national authorities can result in varying outcomes, thus distorting competition in the internal market; welcomes in this regard the Commission’s proposal on the ECN+;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Encourages the Commission to strengthen
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Stresses that national competition authorities play a decisive role in the enforcement of EU competition law alongside the European Commission and thus significantly contribute to a properly functioning, competitive, and consumer-oriented internal market, but that they need the necessary financial and human resources and independence in order to function effectively;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Is concerned that uneven enforcement of EU competition law by national authorities can result in varying outcomes, thus distorting competition in the internal market;welcomes in this regard the Commission’s proposal on the ECN+;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4 a. Notes the Commission’s final report on the E-commerce sector inquiry1a, which confirms that in the e- commerce sector many existing business practices negatively affect fair competition and limit consumer choice; _________________ 1a http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/s ector_inquiry_final_report_en.pdf
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4 b. Supports the Commission’s intention to target enforcement of the EU competition rules at widespread business practices that have emerged or evolved as a result of the growth of e-commerce;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 c (new) 4 c. Stresses that the Commission must put increased effort into ensuring consistent application of the EU competition rules in all Member States also with regards to e-commerce-related business practices;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Reiterates th
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Reiterates the possible option of setting up a travelling unit within the Commission which, independently of Member States’ efforts, would need be able to investigate and take decisions in suspected cases of unfair competition and breaches of competition law;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Highlights the importance of access to justice for
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Highlights the importance of
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Highlights the importance of access to justice for consumers and of the availability for collective redress in order to ensure fair competition and equitable treatment for consumers; underlines that the absence of such opportunities weakens competition at the expense of the internal market and consumer rights;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Highlights the importance of access to justice for consumers and of the availability for collective redress in order to ensure fair competition; underlines that the absence of such opportunities on EU level weakens competition
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that fair tax competition
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Stresses that efforts to foster competition through the development of the Digital Single Market must at all times work in the interests of consumers, and that the rights enshrined in the EU Charter for fundamental rights must be fully protected in the digital domain;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 b (new) 6 b. Stresses that competition that is both free and fair is ultimately for the benefit of consumers;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Recalls that if anti-competitive practices are to be fought effectively, all aspects of unfair competition must be taken into consideration, including social dumping and fraudulent posting of workers
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Recalls that if anti-competitive practices are to be fought effectively, Member States must adopt an economic policy that is consistent with the principles of an open market economy based on fair competition, and all aspects of unfair competition must be taken into consideration, including social dumping
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Recalls that
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Recalls that if anti-competitive practices are to be fought effectively, all aspects of unfair competition must be
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Recalls that if anti-competitive practices are to be fought effectively, all aspects of unfair competition must be taken into consideration, including
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Recalls that if anti-competitive practices are to be fought effectively, all aspects of unfair competition must be taken into consideration, including
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that competition policy is closely interlinked with taxation policy; encourages the Commission to strengthen its efforts to tackle
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Welcomes the continuous review and evaluation of EU competition law by the Commission;considers, for example, the consultation carried out by the Commission on the possible improvement of EU merger control to be very important;believes that steps must be taken to ensure, in particular in the digital sphere, that mergers do not restrict competition in the EU internal market;calls again on the Commission to therefore examine carefully whether current assessment procedures take sufficient account of circumstances on digital markets and of the internationalisation of markets;considers in this connection that, for example, the merger assessment criteria should be adapted;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7 a. Takes note of the E-commerce Sector Inquiry and its final report;believes that the inquiry should be part of a greater enforcement effort by the Commission to apply the full competition policy to online retailers;underlines that given the asymmetrical relationship between large online retailers and their suppliers, the Commission and national competition authorities should actively enforce competition rules as suppliers, especially SMEs, do not have the means to challenge such players in the courts;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7 a. Calls on Member States to ensure the proper enforcement of EU public procurement rules in order to ensure fair competition including social, environmental and consumer protection criteria where appropriate and promote good practice in public authorities’ processes;proper enforcement will tackle distortions of competition and enable public authorities to choose to organise and provide quality public services so as to ensure effective and efficient public expenditure;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Stresses that unjustified and disproportionate regulations on access to regulated professions and the pursuit of professional activities distort competition in the services market, restrict opportunities for young professionals and adversely affect the interests of consumers, inter alia by increasing the prices of services;calls, therefore, on the Commission to step up its efforts to limit unjustified regulations and open access to regulated professions;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7 a. Points out that one form of social dumping can arise through crowdsourcing, the practice in which platforms offer contracts to so-called ´independent contractors´, irrespective of their location globally, at the lowest price;is concerned that this can undermine existing EU legislation, in particular Directive 2008/104/EC, as it can lead to bogus self-employment and may undermine the position of workers in the EU.
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7 a. Underlines the essential role of administrative fines in deterring future breaches of competition law;urges all Member States to grant their competition authorities the power to impose such fines;considers it essential that a parent company can be held liable for infringement of EU competition law by its subsidiaries;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7 a. Recalls that persistent concerns about the issue of dual product quality distort consumers' trust and competition in the single market;calls on the Commission and Member States to intensify efforts to tackle dual products quality for both food and non-food products;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Feels that the development of interoperability and electronic public procurement procedures will make it easier for SMEs to access public procurement, will increase transparency and will ensure more effective monitoring of the infringement of competition rules in this area:
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7 a. Reiterates that protectionist measures harm the functioning of the Single Market and encourages the Commission to enforce the Single Market rules and guide Member States to comply with fundamental freedoms including the free movement of labour.
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7 a. Underlines that territorial distribution and selective distribution agreements cannot be used as a justified reason to geoblock consumers, especially in case of passive sales without delivery;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Stresses that monopolies and oligopolies, in particular, violate the principles of fair competition in services, trade and investment, and often harm the legitimate interests of consumers;calls, therefore, on the Commission to step up its efforts against monopolistic practices that distort competition;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7 b. Is concerned by the increased use of contractual restrictions by manufacturers on online sales, as confirmed by the e-commerce inquiry, and calls on the Commission to further review such clauses to ensure that they do not create unjustified restrictions of competition;at the same time, asks the Commission to review the Guidelines on Vertical Restraints and the Block Exemption (Regulation 330/2010) in light of these changes;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7 b. Reiterates its request to the Commission to explain how it defines the minimum of market players necessary for fair competition in the EU, how it retains the possibility for new companies, in particular start-ups, to enter highly concentrated markets and how it avoids the emergence of companies that are ´too big to fail´ and would require State support, in order to avoid major employment losses in the case of their closing down.
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7 b. Believes that criteria to join a selective distribution should be transparent in order to ensure that such criteria do not violate competition policy and the free functioning of the single market;underlines that such criteria must be objective, qualitative, non- discriminatory and not go beyond what is strictly necessary;calls on the Commission to take measures to ensure this transparency;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7 b. Calls for the strengthening of the freedom of choice for consumers in the Digital Single Market;considers that the enshrined right to data portability in the GDPR is a good approach to strengthening the rights of consumers and competition;in this context underlines the need to examine how interoperability between digital networks by open standards and interfaces can be ensured;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Recalls that, in light of the Digital Single Market Strategy, there is a need to strengthen consumer and business confidence in e-commerce, which will help strengthen the powers of national competition enforcement authorities as regards compliance with competition rules and ensure the effective cooperation of these authorities with the Commission, in addition to ensuring cyber security;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7 b. Calls on the Commission to promote market access opportunities for SMEs through smaller contracts where compatible with key procurement objectives, and for the Commission to carefully monitor the centralisation of purchases in public procurement markets;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 c (new) 7 c. Emphasises the relationship between the internal market and competition policy;encourages strong cooperation between Parliament’s Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the Commission in order to ensure that the interests of consumers are protected and promoted in any and all efforts to encourage a competitive EU.
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 c (new) 7 c. Believes that retailers should be able to set retail prices freely;believes that price parity and conditional parity clauses may undermine free competition, especially in the digital single market;asks the Commission to further analyse such clauses and if needed, to propose restrictions on their use;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 c (new) 7 c. Requests the Commission to explain how under the current competition policies, small market-players can work together when they are all facing big market-players, for example in the food supply chain, or in the case of the franchising model.
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 c (new) 7c. Welcomes the adoption of rules on the portability of pre-paid services under the Single Digital Market Strategy that will improve competition on the internal market and ensure greater consumer rights;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Supports the Commission’s investigations into anti-competitive practices such as selective tax advantages or excess profit ruling systems; emphasises that if there is to be a well-functioning internal market all players need to pay their fair share of tax; considers it necessary to have a solid regulatory and supervisory framework with transparent rules that will guarantee access to the market for all companies, including SMEs;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 c (new) 7 c. Considers that, where duly justified, competition policy solutions should be given preference to regulatory initiatives in the area of Digital Single Market;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 d (new) 7 d. Underlines that territorial distribution and selective distribution agreements cannot be used as a justified reason to geoblock consumers, especially in case of passive sales without delivery;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 d (new) 7d. Welcomes the gradual liberalisation of sectors such as telecoms, postal services and public transport with a view to creating a competitive environment from which consumers will also benefit.
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 d (new) 7 d. Calls on the Commission to examine the dominant role of certain on- line platforms in relation to SMEs and any unfair terms and conditions imposed by these platforms in respect of SMEs.
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 e (new) 7 e. Believes that criteria to join a selective distribution or franchising network should be transparent in order to ensure that such criteria do not violate competition policy and the free functioning of the single market;underlines that such criteria must be objective, qualitative, non- discriminatory and not go beyond what is strictly necessary;calls on the Commission to take measures to ensure this transparency;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 f (new) 7 f. Takes note of the Advocate General Wahl's 26 July 2017 opinion on Coty Germany GmbH v Parfümerie Akzente GmbH that distribution agreement restrictions on online marketplace sales should not be considered as hardcore restrictions under the VBER;nonetheless, asks the Commission, in order to protect competition, to ensure that such restrictions are limited to what is strictly necessary;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 g (new) 7 g. Notes the increased risk of collusion between competitors due to, among others, price monitoring software;considers that concerted practices may emerge despite contact between competitors being weaker than required under current norms, perhaps even automated, as algorithms interact with each other independent of the direction of one or more market players;asks the Commission to be vigilant to such new challenges to free competition;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 h (new) 7 h. Considers that effective competition policy can complement or, in some cases, replace regulatory initiatives in the area of the Digital Single Market;considers that where the impetus for regulatory action is primarily in response to market actions by some players, it would be wiser to tackle any harms through competition measures;believes this would tackle the real anticompetitive practices without holding back those who seek to compete;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 i (new) 7 i. Welcomes the Commission's efforts to link with their international partners and multilateral fora in the area of competition policy;believes that international cooperation is increasingly essential where companies subject to actions operate across multiple jurisdictions;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 j (new) 7 j. Believes that increasing the network of free trade agreements involving the European Union will benefit the enforcement of competition law globally;encourages the Commission in this regard to seek further trade agreement opportunities and to include strong antitrust and state aid rules in any such future agreements;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Supports the Commission’s investigations into anti-competitive practices; s
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Supports the Commission’s investigations into anti-competitive practices such as
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
source: 612.074
2017/10/20
AGRI
92 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Recital A A. whereas Article 42 TFEU
Amendment 10 #
C. whereas, due to economic hazards in the farming sector, a solely market- oriented CAP
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Recital C C. whereas, due to economic hazards in the farming sector on the one hand, and the imbalance in the relationship between processors or large retail operators and farmers, to the latter’s detriment, on the other, a market-oriented CAP needs to provide support to farmers and grant additional
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Recital C C. whereas, due to economic hazards in the farming sector, at times of crisis a market-oriented CAP needs to
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas a clear, coherent and workable regulatory environment in terms of adaptation of competition policy to agricultural specificities can contribute to strengthening farmers’ position within the food supply chain by tackling power imbalances between operators, increasing market efficiency and ensuring legal certainty and a level playing field within the single market;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas a clear, coherent and workable regulatory environment in terms of adaptation of competition policy to agricultural specificities can contribute to strengthening farmers’ position within the food supply chain by increasing market efficiency and ensuring a level playing field within the single market;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Recital C b (new) Cb. whereas the competition policy can not resolve unfair trading practices (UTPs) alone in the food supply chain, the coherence with other policies is needed;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Recital D D. whereas climate
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Recital D a (new) Da. whereas in the Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas 2014 to 20201 a, the European Commission acknowledged the special nature of the agricultural sector and its social structure, and the scale of the new challenges, such as food security and environmental and climate issues, it is facing; whereas this policy needs therefore to contribute to strengthening the economic viability of farms and promoting food supply chain organisation, rural development and social inclusion; _________________ 1a European Union Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas 2014 to 2020 (OJ 1.7.2014, C-204/1)
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Recital D a (new) Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Recital D a (new) Da. whereas, due to its intrinsic nature and long production cycles, farming cannot be compared to any other activity as far as elasticity of supply is concerned; whereas, that being so, the logic of the market cannot be applied to this sector in the same way as it is applied in other sectors of economic activity;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Recital B B. whereas Article 39(1)
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Recital D a (new) Da. whereas the specific problems inherent to agriculture, such as fragmented production, upstream- downstream imbalances, price volatility, inelasticity of demand or even the perishable nature of the goods, require competition rules specially suited to this sector;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Recital D a (new) Da. whereas the agricultural production sector is vulnerable due to the imbalances in the food supply chain; the imbalances arise partly from the difference between the economic size of farms and the other players of the chain;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Recital D b (new) Db. whereas the Agricultural Markets Task Force drew up in November 2016 a whole series of proposals to strengthen the position of farmers in the food supply chain, review contractual tools available to farmers, combat unfair practices and clarify the agricultural exemptions to competition law; whereas these recommendations were welcomed by the EU institutions and stakeholders in the food supply chain;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Recital D b (new) Db. whereas farmers’ low and insufficient income is the result of the low prices paid for production, and these prices are in many cases the consequence of the dominant position of large distribution chains in the retail sector;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Recital D b (new) Db. whereas opening up the EU market to very competitive trade partners and major exporters of agricultural products constitutes a risk to sensitive farm sectors in the EU;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Recital D b (new) Db. whereas the agricultural component of the Omnibus regulation is a significant step for the CAP, which is offering important improvements in competition policy;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Recital D c (new) Dc. whereas the preliminary ruling pending before the Court of Justice in Case No C-671/15 (‘endives’) bears witness to the need for producers organisations and associations of producers organisations to have legal certainty when fulfilling their duties, and particularly so in a sector characterised by a highly fragmented supply-side facing a concentrated demand-side, and by difficulties in controlling supply and forecasting demand;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Recital D c (new) Dc. whereas the October 2016 Study on agricultural interbranch organisations in the EU drew attention to the important role of interbranch organisations in the transmission of economic and technical information to stakeholders in the production chain; whereas this study demonstrates that interbranch organisations enable better risk and profit sharing;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Recital D c (new) Dc. whereas EU competition policy is an essential instrument for a properly functioning internal market in the Union. The competition policy helps us to prevent the over-concentration of economic and financial power and is also a key tool for lower prices, better-quality products and services and greater choice for consumers;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Recital D d (new) Dd. whereas the European Parliament made ambitious proposals during negotiations on the Regulation on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (2016/0282) which sought to combat unfair trade practices by establishing the right of the individual to a written contract and by guaranteeing dialogue and the sharing of added value among supply chain stakeholders, and to clarify the competition rules by revising the rules on economic producer organisations and the general and crisis exemptions to competition law;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Recital B B. whereas Article 39(1)(b) TFEU sets as one of the objectives of the common agricultural policy (CAP) that of ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture, believes that EU policy in respect of FTAs which include agricultural products is a contradiction of that;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Recital D d (new) Dd. whereas the Agricultural Markets Task Force (“AMTF”) conclusions must be taken into account, where applicable, with regard to future discussions and measures to be taken, as it was established with a view to improving the position of farmers in the food supply chain; the AMTF urged the Commission to take concrete initiatives to end the current contradictions over the limits of operability posed by competition rules over the mission of producers’ organisations (POs), association of producers’ organisations (APOs), and other forms of cooperation between producers in the agricultural sector;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Recital D d (new) Dd. whereas the preliminary ruling pending before the Court of Justice in Case C-671/15 (‘endives’) bears witness to the need for associations of non- commercial producer organisations to have legal certainty in performing their duties;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the collective activities of producer organisations and their associations (including production planning and the negotiation of sales and of the terms of contracts) are necessary to achieve the CAP objectives as defined in Article 39 TFEU and should therefore benefit, in principle, from a presumption of compatibility with Article 101 TFEU; notes that the current derogations are not used to their full extent and that the lack of clarity of those derogations, the difficulties in implementation and the lack of uniform application by national competition authorities do not give farmers and their organisations enough legal certainty;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the collective activities of producer organisations and their associations (including production planning and the negotiation of sales and of the terms of contracts) are necessary to achieve the CAP objectives as defined in Article 39 TFEU and should therefore benefit, in principle, from a presumption of
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the collective activities of producer organisations and their associations (including production planning and the negotiation of sales and of the terms of contracts) are necessary to achieve the CAP objectives as defined in Article 39 TFEU and should therefore be
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the collective activities of producer organisations and their associations (including production
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Calls on the Commission to improve available tools by ensuring that competition policy takes better account of the specificities of the agricultural sector and by appropriately clarifying the scope of the general derogation for agriculture;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Believes that the Commission should assess under which conditions more room could be created within competition policy for collective arrangements of producers organisations, including cooperatives, their associations and inter-branch organisations, that are made for the purpose of sustainability (such as initiatives that favour biodiversity, improve animal welfare and/or health, combat antimicrobial resistance) under the condition that these arrangements favour consumers and society;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Calls for an automatic express exemption from Article 101 TFEU to be provided, subject to the principles of necessity and proportionality, for agricultural inter-branch organisations in order to enable them to accomplish the tasks assigned to them by the CMO Regulation with a view to furthering the aims of Article 39 TFEU;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Recalls that Article 42 TFEU gives special status to the agricultural sector as regards competition law, affirmed during the last reform of the CAP by allowing a series of derogations and exemptions from the provisions of Article 101 TFEU; considers that the current crisis in the farming sector is worsening the already weak positions of farmers within the food supply chain;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas, given farming’s specific natural and structural features, the EU legislator has ever since 1962 defended the existence of a special status for the agricultural sector in regard to application of competition law and whereas this ‘agricultural exception’ has become ever more relevant in the context of a market-oriented CAP and the increased globalisation of agricultural markets;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 c (new) 1c. Calls on the Commission to adopt a more extensive approach in defining a ‘dominant position’ and the abuse of such a position by an agricultural undertaking or a number of such undertakings linked by a horizontal agreement, taking into consideration the degree of concentration and the constraints resulting from the negotiating strength of the input, processing and retail sectors;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Recalls that, in general, competition policy only defends consumers’ interests, but does not take account of agricultural producers’ specific interests and difficulties; stresses that competition policy must attach the same importance to defending the interests of agricultural producers as it does to defending consumers’ interests, by ensuring that the conditions for competition and for access to the internal market are fair in order to foster investment, employment, innovation, viability of agricultural businesses and balanced development of rural areas in the EU;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Recalls that, in general, competition policy
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Recalls that, in general, competition policy only defends consumers’ interests,
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Recalls that, in general, competition policy only defends consumers’ interests, but does not take account of agricultural producers’ specific interests and difficulties, also believes to have credibility in addressing producers interests the inequality within the CAP payment structure must be addressed as a first step;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Recalls that, in general, competition policy only defends consumers’ interests, but does not take account of agricultural producers’ specific interests and
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Recalls that, in general, competition policy only defends consumers’ interests, but does not take account of agricultural producers’ specific interests and difficulties; believes that a true level playing field should be ensured, while promoting transparency for market participants;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Recalls that, in general, competition policy must only defend
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Points to the Commission's recognition, in the context of the Report on Competition Policy 2016, of the fact that agricultural producers have very little bargaining power in their negotiations vis-à-vis large suppliers and buyers, since agricultural producers form the least concentrated level in the food supply chain, whereas, in contrast, their input suppliers and customers (processors, wholesalers and retailers) are often much larger and more concentrated; calls for these notions to be effectively reflected in policy implementation;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Stresses that competition policy must attach the same importance to defending the interests of agricultural producers as it does to defending consumers’ interests, by ensuring that the conditions for competition and for access to the internal market are fair in order to foster investment, employment, innovation, viability of agricultural businesses and balanced development of rural areas in the EU;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union sets price stability within the internal market as an objective;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Expects the Commission to take into account the primacy of CAP objectives over competition policy; notes the importance of the European Court of Justice’s statement on a more flexible, clear and predictable applications of competition rules to producers and producers' organisations;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Points out that if our agricultural sector is at risk, all citizens are affected the potential damage to essential food supplies; further points out that a market- oriented CAP needs to provide support to farmers and grant additional time-limited and general exemptions from competition rules;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Insists that the concept of ‘fair price’ should not be regarded as the lowest price possible for the consumer, but instead must be reasonable and allow fair remuneration of each party within the food supply chain;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 c (new) 2c. Stresses that the disparity caused by the different economic size of farm businesses in terms of market power should be taken into account whenever competition rules are enforced by the Commission and by national competition authorities;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 c (new) Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes that farmers in all sectors of production should be guaranteed the right to collective bargaining
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes that farmers in all sectors of production should be guaranteed the right to
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Believes that farmers in all sectors of production should be guaranteed the right to collective bargaining, including the right to agree on minimum prices; believes that farmers should fully engage with and be equipped with the means to exploit the potential of producer organisations, including producer cooperatives, their associations and inter-branch bodies; calls on the Commission to encourage such collective self-help tools to grow in competencies and efficiencies by clarifying and simplifying the rules applicable to them in order to strengthen their negotiating capacity and their competitiveness, while safeguarding the principles set out in Article 39 TFEU;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Welcomes the fact, taking into account the encouraging implementation reviews1a and the way in which it is helping to strengthen the position of dairy farmers within the food supply chain, that the 2012 ‘Milk Package’ has been extended in time under the Omnibus Regulation; calls on the Commission, however, to carry out an impact assessment to determine whether the provisions on contractual negotiations in the milk and milk products sector should be extended in scope to cover other agricultural sectors; _________________ 1aReports on ‘Development of the dairy market situation and the operation of the “Milk Package” provisions’ (COM(2016)0724 and COM(2014)0354).
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas the EU farming sector is mainly composed of small family-run farms, which have a low resilience to shocks and market changes;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Maintains that the Commission as guardian of EU competition rules, and national competition authorities should be more lenient in applying article 101 TFEU to the agreements, practices and coordination conducts carried out by POs, APOs, agricultural cooperatives and consortiums between producers, especially with regard to the fundamental objective of ensuring available and reasonably priced food supplies in line with Article 39 TFEU;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Calls for clarification and amendment of the common market organisation provisions relating to competition law, not least with a view to ensuring that key economic information is communicated in good time to the entire production chain;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Notes that the Omnibus Regulation has established an individual right to written contracts for farmers and, as regards the contractual framework existing in the sugar sector, whereby farmers, their organisations, and the first buyer downstream from the supply chain may negotiate contractual terms enabling value to be shared according to market trends affecting agricultural products or other commodities, has extended its scope to include other agricultural sectors, and considers that these provisions will help to calm relations between stakeholders, combat unfair trading practices, make farmers more responsive to market signals, make for better price reporting and transmission, and gear supply more readily to demand;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Believes that ‘long’ inter-branch organisations, bringing together producers, processors, and distributors, should be allowed to hold meetings in order to discuss crisis prevention and management measures intended to restore market conditions making it possible to achieve the aims of Article 39 TFEU;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Encourages the EU institutions to grant agri-cooperatives and other types of POs clear derogations from competition law to improve farmers’ income and their share in the value chain;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 c (new) Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 c (new) 3c. Calls for more clarity for POs and APOs with regard to the application of competition rules by issuing appropriate guidelines specifically on the “safe harbour market shares” under which the exemptions or derogations from competition rules already exist; calls for the guidelines already published by the Commission for the olive oil, arable crops and beef and veal meat sectors to be extended also to other sectors, widened in scope and improved both in clarity and effectiveness;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 c (new) 3c. Calls on the Commission to allow greater flexibility and afford legal certainty to agricultural sectors as regards competition, in accordance with Article 42 TFEU;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 d (new) 3d. Calls on the Commission, in the light of the recommendation of the Agricultural Markets Task Force, to redraft Article 209 of the CMO Regulation in order to specify the exception in such a way as to make the non-application of Article 101 TFEU – where this is provided for – enforceable and workable;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Recital B b (new) Bb. whereas a clear and coherent regulatory environment in terms of adaptation of competition policy to the specific features of the agricultural market can help strengthen farmers’ position within the food supply chain by tackling power imbalances between operators, increasing market efficiency and ensuring legal certainty and a level playing field within the single market;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 e (new) 3e. Considers that the provisions of Article 222 of the CMO Regulation allowing temporary derogations from competition law will be quicker to trigger in response to severe market imbalances and that this a result of the changes made in the Omnibus Regulation:
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 f (new) 3f. Proposes that the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 enabling supply regulation measures to be adopted for cheeses with a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication (Article 150), for PDO or PGI ham (Article 172), or for wines (Article 167) be extended to cover quality- labelled products in order to increase the possibilities for matching supply with demand;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls on the Member States and the EU Institutions to prioritise the strengthening of the post-Brexit single market by ensuring full compliance with EU competition laws and
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls on the Member States and the EU Institutions to prioritise the strengthening of the post-Brexit single market by ensuring full compliance with EU competition laws and other standards, ensure legal certainty, and by harmonising tax issues between Member States;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Calls on the Commission to fully take into account the effect of possible market distortions resulting from trade agreements with third countries on agricultural producers in Europe, given their delicate financial situation and their fundamental role in our society;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Believes a substantial rebalancing of power within the EU food chain by extending the 2010 milk package to all agricultural sectors is a must; through this and other tools, farmers and producers’ organisations should have more freedom to plan production, the right to collective bargaining and the negotiation of sales and of the terms of contracts that set prices and volumes clearly;
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 c (new) Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 d (new) 4d. Underlines that there is “regulatory contradiction” regarding the respective scopes of application of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets, on the one side, and competition rules, on the other side, especially with regard to the practices of producer organisations and association of producer organisations carry out in favour of their members;
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Reiterates the need for the progressive development of the EU competition framework and to include in the monitoring
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Recital B b (new) Bb. whereas the agricultural markets are characterised by increased volatility of agricultural prices and are experiencing an unprecedented crisis, accentuated by the weak position of farmers within the food supply chain;
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Reiterates the need for the progressive development of the EU competition framework to include
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Reiterates the need for the progressive development of the EU competition framework to include the monitoring of the food supply chain, the evolutions in the position of primary producers and the Sustainability
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Reiterates the need for the progressive development of the EU competition framework to include the monitoring of the food supply chain, the evolutions in the position of primary producers and the Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems (SAFA) indicators; stresses that a key objective is to end the import of products from third countries that have not undergone stringent checks in order to protect the health of consumers.
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Notes that the individual ceiling for de minimis aid in the agricultural sector was doubled in 2013 (from EUR 7 500 to EUR 15 000 on a three-tax- year rolling basis) in order to cope with the upsurge in climate-driven, health, and economic crises; points out that the national de minimis ceiling was at that time adjusted only marginally (from 0.75% to 1% of the value of national agricultural production), thus reducing the latitude for Member States to assist farms in difficulties when confronted with crises occurring one after another in different sectors; calls, therefore, for the national de minimis ceiling to be raised to 1.5% of national agricultural production;
Amendment 84 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Acknowledges that, so far, competition law has not been applied to tackle unfair trading practices in the food chain either at the European, nor at the national level; notes that specific national rules have been implemented in this respect, but they have not proved fully effective in addressing the endemic problem of unfair trading practices and imbalance of power in the food supply chain; calls on the Commission to publish and approve without delay the announced EU legislative proposal on unfair trading practices provide a harmonized legal framework which will better protect producers and farmers from unfair trading practices, and ensure further consolidation of the internal market.
Amendment 85 #
5a. Reiterates its call on the Commission to clarify the scope of individual exemptions from competition rules on the basis of Article 101(3) TFEU, in particular with respect to sustainability agreements entered into within the food supply chain to meet societal demands and whose measures go beyond statutory requirements, as these can be exempted from competition law if they contribute to improving production or promoting progress while benefiting consumers;
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Calls on the Commission and national competition authorities to ensure that commodities are properly characterised and paid for and to penalise abuses of a dominant position and any moves towards unfair trading practices affecting farmers;
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion 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 88 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Asks the Commission to increase, as soon as possible, the maximum limit of de minimis aid in order to facilitate the Member States’ possibilities to alleviate the difficult economic situation of farmers.
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Notes that health, climate-driven, and economic crises in the agricultural sector are becoming increasingly frequent and severe, and that effective, coherent rules on de minimis aid should serve to improve the position for farmers; points out that in exceptional circumstances due to crises the individual ceiling could be temporarily raised to EUR 30 000;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Recital B c (new) Bc. whereas the most recent CAP reform brought in new exemptions to competition law that sought to boost farmers’ position in the food supply chain by promoting cooperation among them as a means of improving their bargaining power, enabling them to capture a bigger share of the value added for their products and making them more competitive;
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Calls for binding action in the food supply chain against retailers harming farmers and consumers.
Amendment 91 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 c (new) 5c. Points out that in 2013 the Commission decided that farm businesses in difficulty covered by a rescue plan could receive de minimis aid up to the EUR 10 000 ceiling applicable to companies in difficulties, and calls for that ceiling to be increased;
Amendment 92 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 d (new) 5d. Points out that Parliament has already called upon the Commission and the national competition authorities to respond effectively to the anxieties being caused by the combined impact which the rapid concentration of the distribution sector at national level and, secondly, the alliances being formed among large-scale distributors at European and international level are having both on the upstream part of the food supply chain and on distributors and consumers; believes that this structural change raises concerns about possible strategic alignments, a fall-off in competition, and reduced scope for investment in innovation within the food supply chain;
source: 612.208
2017/10/26
INTA
26 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Emphasises the overriding importance of consistency between commercial policy, competition policy and all other Union policies
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Emphasises that reciprocity must be one of the key principles underpinning Union commercial policy, with a view to ensuring
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Emphasises that reciprocity must be one of the key principles underpinning Union commercial policy, with a view to ensuring that our trading partners open up their markets more to EU firms, in particular in the area of public procurement; stresses that efforts aimed at securing greater access to foreign public procurement markets must not undermine the development of EU rules in relation to social and environmental criteria; emphasises the importance for the Union of an international instrument on public procurement; takes the view that the Commission proposal on the monitoring of foreign investment should make for greater reciprocity in the
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Emphasises that reciprocity must be one of the key principles underpinning
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Emphasises that reciprocity must be one of the key principles underpinning Union commercial policy
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Stresses however that the EU needs foreign investments and that closing our markets will not improve the conditions for the economy to grow;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Welcomes the inclusion in recent trade agreements, such as CETA and the agreement in principle with Japan of provisions on competition policy; regrets however that these provisions remain limited in scope and do not provide for effective enforcement and dispute resolution; Draws attention to the importance of maintaining constant dialogue with trading partners and incorporating ambitious provisions on competition in all trade agreements with a view to guaranteeing fair rules; emphasises the need to comply with and enforce these provisions;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Calls on the Commission to take account of the needs of SMEs when conducting negotiations and trade, with a view to making the firms in question more competitive; in this respect, acknowledges the Commission’s effort to combat unfair competition in high-profile cases against well-known companies, but stresses that the enforcement of fair competition in the case of SMEs is also of the utmost importance;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Calls on the
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Calls on the Commission to take account of the needs of SMEs when conducting negotiations and trade, with a view to ensuring better access to markets and making the firms in question more competitive;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Emphasises the overriding importance of consistency between commercial policy, competition policy and all other Union policies; adds that EU competition policy must take account of developments in international competition;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Stresses that EU trade policy and trade agreements can have a role to play to the fight against corruption;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Draws attention to the fundamental importance of
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Draws attention to the importance of effective
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Calls on the Union to continue to promote fair competition rules at international level; recalls the work undertaken at the WTO between 1996 and 2004 on the interaction between trade and competition policy and regrets that this issue has not been part of the WTO work programme since; stresses that provisions in WTO agreements such as GATS Article IX provide a basis to further cooperation amongst WTO members on competition matters; therefore calls for fresh progress to be made at the 11th WTO Ministerial Conference towards guaranteeing fair international competition, although account should also be taken of the sensitive nature of certain sectors, in particular agriculture
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Calls on the Union to continue to promote fair competition rules at international level; calls for fresh progress to be made at the 11th WTO Ministerial Conference towards guaranteeing fair international competition, although account should also be taken of the sensitive nature of certain sectors, in particular agriculture. Stresses that global cooperation on the enforcement of competition rules helps resolve inconsistencies and improve the outcomes of enforcement, and helps businesses to reduce their compliance costs;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Calls on the
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Reiterates that equal access to natural resources, including energy sources, has a fundamental impact on fair and equal competition on the global market; calls, therefore, on the Commission to include provisions that improve access to such resources in trade agreements;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Emphasises the overriding importance of consistency between the commercial polic
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Recalls that the level of transparency and openness sets the conditions for true and fair competition;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Points out that combating unfair trading practices will benefit both consumers and businesses and is one of the priorities of the
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Calls for trade defence instruments to be updated to make them stronger, faster and more effective; stresses the importance of the Union devising a reliable new method of calculating anti-dumping duties; emphasises in particular the importance of the anti-subsidy instrument in tackling unfair global competition, and establishing a level playing field with EU state aid rules;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Calls for trade defence instruments to be updated to make them stronger, faster and more effective; stresses the importance of the Union devising a reliable new method of calculating anti-dumping duties
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Calls for trade defence instruments to be updated to make them stronger, faster and more effective; stresses the importance of the Union devising a reliable new method of calculating anti-dumping duties and welcomes the interinstitutional agreement that has been reached, while recalling the importance of ensuring its effective implementation;
source: 612.360
2017/11/28
ECON
292 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 1 – having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular Articles 39, 42 and 101 to 109 as well as Article 174 thereof,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Reiterates that all market players should pay their fair share of tax;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Reiterates that
Amendment 102 #
14. Reiterates that all market players should pay their fair share of tax; welcomes the Commission’s in-depth investigations into anti-competitive practices such as selective tax advantages and excess profit ruling systems; stresses that the reduction of tax fraud and tax avoidance is fundamental in order to consolidate sound public budgets; Underlines, therefore, the need to ensure broad access to information in order to trigger more investigations on suspicious cases;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Reiterates that all market players should pay their fair share of tax in the country where profits are generated; welcomes the Commission’s in-depth investigations into anti-competitive practices such as selective tax advantages
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Reiterates that all market players should pay their fair share of tax and the state aid rules apply tax exemptions just as much as to any other type of aid; welcomes the Commission’s in-depth investigations into anti-competitive practices such as selective tax advantages and excess profit ruling systems; stresses that the reduction of tax fraud and tax avoidance is fundamental in order to consolidate sound public budgets;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Reiterates that all market players should respect the relevant international, EU, and national tax legislation and pay their fair share of tax accordingly; welcomes the Commission’s in-depth investigations into anti-competitive practices such as selective tax advantages and excess profit ruling systems; stresses that the reduction of tax fraud and tax avoidance is fundamental in order to consolidate sound public budgets;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Reiterates that all market players should pay their fair share of tax; welcomes the Commission’s in-depth investigations into anti-competitive practices such as selective tax advantages and excess profit ruling systems; stresses that
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Expresses its concern at the lack of action of competition authorities against the retroactive elimination of support schemes to renewable energy; underlines that this inaction has further distorted competition, since international investors have been able to obtain redress while local investors have not; calls on the Commission to investigate the distorting effects of existing capacity payments and nuclear moratorium payments in electricity markets;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Emphasises that the notion of selectivity in State aid is an essential criterion that needs to be investigated thoroughly; notes that this concept is not free from discussion, especially not in tax cases; believes that an exception from a tax system is not selective if it is a priori open to all tax payers;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Points out that the harmonisation of the common consolidated corporate tax base(CCCTB) is vital in order to eliminate distortions of competition and reduce the appeal of concluding opaque tax agreements between certain multinationals and Member States;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Underlines that corporate tax base harmonisation is a key element in eliminating distortion of competition and will contribute to the fight against opaque tax agreements between some multinationals and Member States;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Calls on the Commission to promote convergence of competition policy instruments and practices across jurisdiction as well as protecting the global level playing field through free trade agreements;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Recommends an increased sharing of information between national authorities in order to ensure that taxes are paid in EU when this shall be the case and in the relevant Member state;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Stresses that excessive tax burdens and tax rates hamper economic innovations and can constitute significant barriers to entry for new and small players;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Calls for the revision of State aid guidelines on taxation to cover cases of unfair competition going beyond tax rulings and transfer pricing;
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 b (new) 14b. Stresses that a comprehensive, transparent and effective exchange of tax information is essential to avoid aggressive tax planning; stresses at the same time that simplification of taxation systems at Member State level can be an essential step in order to create transparency and clarity;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 b (new) 14b. Calls for a European minimum corporate tax rate in order to stop tax competition and a race to the bottom between Member States leading to unfair competition and which often benefits transnational groups only;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 b (new) 14b. Highlights the need to revise collective redress mechanisms in the EU, in order to ensure that consumers hurt by anticompetitive practices are appropriately compensated;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 b (new) 14b. Considers that sales tax on digital companies could improve competition conditions and contribute to a level play field within the single market;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 b (new) 14b. Underlines the need for simple and transparent tax policies and regulations;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Stresses that Parliament should also be given co-decision powers in competition policy and regrets that this area of Union policy in its democratic dimension has not been strengthened in recent treaty changes; calls, therefore, for the treaties to be amended accordingly and for the ordinary legislative procedure under the Lisbon Treaty to be introduced for competition law as well;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 c (new) 14c. Underlines however that taxation is a national competence, dependent on the political view and actions of governments and parliaments, based upon fiscal policies and political aspirations regarding public spending;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 c (new) 14c. Urges the Council to swiftly adopt the Commission proposal on the harmonisation of the consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB) after taking into account the Parliament´s opinion;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 c (new) 14c. Invites the Commission to make full use of its competition law powers to help Member States effectively tackle harmful tax practices;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 d (new) 14d. Welcomes the fact that the Commission regards the opaque tax rulings awarded by some Member States to certain multinationals as illegal state aid, on the grounds that they distort competition in the internal market, and encourages the Commission to continue its efforts in this direction;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15.
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Welcomes the Commission decision taken against Luxembourg on the illegal tax benefits granted to Amazon (around EUR 250 million); calls for active steps to be taken to increase to a fair level Apple's effective tax rate in the EU, which is currently close to zero.
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Welcomes efforts by the Commission to make large digital companies pay their fair share of taxes in EU Member States; further welcomes the Commission decision taken against Luxembourg on the illegal tax benefits granted to Amazon (around EUR 250 million);
Amendment 128 #
15. Welcomes the Commission decision taken against Luxembourg on the illegal tax benefits granted to Amazon (around EUR 250 million); notes that both Luxembourg and Amazon could appeal the decision;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15a. Recalls that Commissioner Vestager stated during a structured dialogue with the economic and monetary affairs committee (ECON) on Tuesday 21 November that the Google case represented potentially 4,2 terabytes of data to analyse; believes that this case clearly highlights the importance of having sufficient resources and adequate equipment allocated to competition authorities;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Stresses that it is the consumer who chiefly benefits from functional competition in the European single market;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15a. Stresses that the timely recovery of illegal aid is indispensable for an effective state aid regime, capable of enforcing fair competition in the single market; supports the relevant actions taken by the Commission in relation to the Ireland/Apple case;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 a (new) 15a. Underlines the need to tax digital companies according to their genuine activity in Member States by capturing turnover generated through digital platforms, thus avoiding a competitive disadvantage for companies carrying out business by means of a permanent physical presence;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 b (new) 15b. Considers that fair competition within the internal market can be hampered by tax planning as, new entrants and SMEs doing business only in one country are penalised as compared to MNCs, which can shift profits or implement other forms of aggressive tax planning through a variety of decisions and instruments, available to them only; notes with concern that, the resulting lower tax liabilities leave the latter with a higher post-tax profit and create an uneven playing field with their competitors on the single market, which do not have recourse to aggressive tax planning and keep the connection between where they generate profit and their place of taxation;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 c (new) 15c. Underlines the importance of the establishment of CCCTB, the public disclosure of tax rulings, the review of the VAT Directive, the obligation on large international companies to report publicly their turnover and profits on a ‘country- by-country’ basis, for preventing distortions of competition by aggressive tax planning and tax evasion;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 d (new) 15d. Welcomes the investigations of the Commission on selective tax advantages in Madeira; calls on the Commission to investigate in tax advantages provided in special economic zones or other regionally limited tax advantages and to report its findings to the Parliament;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 e (new) 15e. Asks the Commission to enter into negotiations with all states and territories having a strong access to the common market and lack effective state aid controls against unfair tax competition, including Switzerland;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 f (new) 15f. Stresses the need to abide to the BRRD legal requirement that state aid to the banking sector should as a general rule trigger the resolution of the beneficiaries;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Underlines that the bailout of Veneto Banca and Banca Popolare di Vicenza was based on the assumption that these were systemic banks in their region, and calls on the Commission to develop this line of thinking in compliance with EU rules and the bail-in principle; points out that in the case of Veneto Banca and Banca Popolare di Vicenza, albeit the SRB had concluded that resolution was not warranted in the public interest, the Commission indicated that it approved state aid on the basis that it mitigates economic disturbance at regional level, thus leading to the application of two different definitions of "public interest" one at the EU and one at regional level; stresses that such interpretation of state aid rules entrenches the limits set by Article 107 paragraph 3b TFEU, circumvents the rules set by the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive, violates the spirit and letter of the banking communication which was meant for preserving financial stability and ignores that the purpose of the banking communication existed in a time when mechanisms allowing for the resolution of credit institutions without threatening financial stability were absent; urges, therefore, the Commission to reconsider its interpretation of the relevant state aid rules in a way consistent with the BRRD resolution framework and to revise its 2013 Banking Communication accordingly, including the area of “liquidation aid”;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Underlines that the bailout of Veneto Banca and Banca Popolare di Vicenza was based on the assumption that these were systemic banks in their region, and calls on the Commission to develop this line of thinking in compliance with EU rules and the bail-in principle; regrets that aid to the banking sector since the beginning of the financial crisis has been insufficiently scrutinized and that current rules have not been effective in protecting tax-payers or in guaranteeing a level- playing field in the banking sector;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Strongly supports the actions of the Commission in its fight against tax avoidance by multinationals, especially in the digital sector, including tax avoidance that is directly facilitated and legalised by EU Member States; endorses in this connection the independence of the Commission in its mission of shaping and enforcing the EU competition rules for the benefit of EU consumers;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Underlines that the bailout of Veneto Banca and Banca Popolare di Vicenza was based on the assumption that these were systemic banks in their region
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Underlines that the bailout of Veneto Banca and Banca Popolare di Vicenza was based on the assumption that these were systemic banks in their region, and calls on the Commission to develop proposals for a fair conflict resolution regarding banks of systematic importance this line of thinking in compliance with EU rules and the bail-in principle;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Underlines that the bailout of Veneto Banca and Banca Popolare di Vicenza was based on the assumption that these were systemic banks in their region, and calls on the Commission to develop this line of thinking
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Underlines that the bailout of Veneto Banca and Banca Popolare di Vicenza was based on the assumption that these were systemic banks in their region, and calls on the Commission to
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) 16a. Recalls that according to the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive, the use of deposit guarantee schemes to prevent the failure of a credit institution should be carried out within a clearly defined framework and should in any event comply with State aid rules;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) 16a. Expresses its concern that growing concentration in the financial sector may reduce the degree of competition in the sector, and is also concerned at the lack of a genuine internal banking market and continuing fragmentation into national markets;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) 16a. Regrets the lack of transparency on state aid decisions; requests the Commission to proceed to their timely publication;
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 b (new) 16b. Calls on the Commission to re- evaluate on an annual basis whether the requirements for the application of Article107(3)(b) TFEU in the financial sector continue to be fulfilled;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 b (new) 16b. Rejects the discriminatory and anti-competitive practice observed in some Member States of rejecting cash payments for small retail transactions:
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Strongly supports the independence of the Commission in its mission of shaping and enforcing the EU competition rules for the benefit of EU consumers; stresses that competition policy should be evidence-based and should be applied consistently in all Member States;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Believes that the financial crisis has increased concentration in the banking sector and calls on the Commission to carry out a region-by-region study at European level to examine this phenomenon and its effects on competition; highlights that the deepening of the Banking Union and the Capital Markets Union is also a key factor in the concentration of financial activity in a few larger players and calls on the Commission to monitor these developments closely;
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Believes that the EMU architecture, certain ECB decisions, the approach to banking supervision and the management thereof at European level and measures that tackle the effects rather than the causes of the financial crisis ha
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Believes that the financial crisis has increased concentration in the banking sector, and
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Believes that following the financial crisis
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Believes that the financial crisis has increased concentration in the banking sector and calls on the Commission to carry out a
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Believes that the financial crisis has increased concentration in the banking sector and calls on the Commission to carry out a
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Welcomes the commitments made by the Commissioner for Competition in the structured dialogue with the Committee for Economic and Monetary Affairs on 21 November 2017 to reflect on possible distortions of competition arising from the European Central Bank's Corporate Sector Purchase Programme and to report back with a qualitative answer; emphasises in this regard that the notion of selectivity in State aid is an essential criterion that needs to be investigated thoroughly; further points in this regard to Article 4(3) TEU which contains the so-called principle of loyalty;
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Calls on the Commission to closely monitor activities in the retail banking sector and financial services sector for any breaches of antitrust rules and cartel activity and to work closely with national competition authorities to enforce EU antitrust rules; notes the recent tracker mortgage scandal in Ireland and invites the Commission to investigate potential cartel activity and breaches of EU competition law;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Welcomes the opening of the dialogue between the Commission and China on state aid control and follows carefully China's adoption of a Fair Competition Review System designed to ensure State measures do not adversely affect market entry and exit and the free movement of goods; asks the Commission to keep the EP updated on the negotiations taking place between the two economic blocks;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Strongly supports the independence of the Commission in its mission of shaping and enforcing the EU competition rules for the benefit of EU c
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Recalls its request to the Commission to examine whether the banking sector has benefited since the beginning of the crisis from implicit subsidies and state aid by means of the provision of unconventional liquidity support;
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Emphasises the crucial role of competition policy in the further development of the Digital Single Market;
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 b (new) 17b. Reiterates that traditional market models of competition policy may not always be suitable for the digital market, as platform-based business models, multi- sided markets; calls on greater attention to be focused on the new business models used by digital companies;
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 b (new) 17b. Asks the Commission to include a chapter on competition in every Free Trade Agreement or Economic Partnership, and invites DG TRADE to liaise with DG COMP in this view, taking into account the specific economic conditions of the least developed economies;
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 b (new) 17b. Considers that it is a priority to ensure that State aid rules are strictly and impartially adhered to when dealing with future banking crises, so that taxpayers are protected against the burden of bank rescues;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 c (new) 17c. Supports the finding of the Commission’s “Sector inquiry into e- commerce” that cross-border e-commerce can contribute to the further integration of the single market, has competitive advantages for businesses and increase consumer choice, but geo-blocking measures constitute a significant impediment to this. Reiterates that this may be found to be contrary to Article 101 in certain circumstances, welcomes the Commission’s commitment to target enforcement of EU competition rules which emerged or became more widespread as a result of the emergence and growing significance of the digital economy, and its aim to broaden dialogue with national competition authorities in order to ensure consistent application of EU competition rules with regards to e- commerce practices;
Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 c (new) 17c. Invites the EU chief negotiator for the Brexit, in cooperation with Commissioner Vestager, to start as soon as possible a fair an transparent discussion on the future of the EU-UK relation in terms of competition;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 d (new) 17d. Believes that every on-going investigations1a for a potential breach of the EU competition law by the UK or by a company based in the UK should not be threatened by the Brexit agenda and that any final decision taken by the Commission after 29 March 2019 should still be binding; _________________ 1aFor example, the Commission's in- depth investigation into a potential state aid scheme regarding UK CFC Group Financing Exemption (SA.44896).
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 d (new) 17d. Reiterates that competition in the internet search and telecommunications sectors is essential to driving innovation and investment in networks and the digital economy, and encourages affordable prices and choice of services for consumers;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 e (new) 17e. Asks for enhanced vigilance regarding fair competition in the single market digital sector; underlines in particular issues of unfair competition conditions imposed by certain dominant on-line platforms on suppliers;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Strongly supports the independence of the Commission
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18.
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Notes that
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Calls on the Commission to ensure that Google implements this remedy effectively; believes that the greatest danger now would be if the Commission were to settle for a partially effective remedy, failing to truly restore the level playing field required for competition and innovation to thrive; notes that following the opportunity to test this remedy, competitors are claiming that the solution proposed by Google will prove insufficient to restore a level playing field in the sector;
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Calls on the Commission to ensure that Google implements this remedy effectively;
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Calls on the Commission to ensure that Google implements this remedy
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Calls on the Commission to ensure that Google implements this remedy effectively and promptly so as to prevent further abuse of a dominant position; believes that the greatest danger now would be if the Commission were to settle for a partially effective remedy, failing to truly restore the level playing field required for competition and innovation to thrive;
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Calls on the Commission to ensure that
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Calls on the Commission to ensure that
Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 a (new) 19a. Calls on the Commission to take more ambitious steps to eliminate illegitimate obstacles to online competition, in order to ensure barrier- free online shopping for EU consumers purchasing from sellers who are based in another Member State, while at the same time not creating new barriers caused by existing variations in consumer law;
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Strongly supports the independence of the Commission in its mission of
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Notes that
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20.
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20.
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20.
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Calls on the Commission to
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Calls on the Commission again to intervene in the other sectors, such as travel search and local search, where Google is allegedly abusing its dominance;
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Calls on the Commission to
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Calls on the Commission to intervene in
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Str
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 a (new) 21a. Calls on the European Commission to be well prepared and equipped for the first bid data case. The utilisation by big tech companies of personal data is unprecedented and consumers often are not aware and informed to the extent their data is being used for super profiling's used for advertising purposes for example;
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Warmly invites the
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22.
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Calls on the Commission to speed up
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23.
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Calls on the Commission to speed up and conclude the Android investigation
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Calls on the Commission to
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 a (new) 23a. Regrets the decision of the Irish Government in the Apple Case; recalls that the Commission has been forced to refer Ireland to Court for failure to recover illegal tax benefits from Apple worth up to €13 billion; believes that the new revelations on Apple from the so- called 'Paradise Papers' and the use of illegal student labour to assemble iPhones are other proofs that this company is clearly and repeatedly seeking to take advantage of the multiple loopholes in taxation and social policies, which results in competition distortion;
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 a (new) 23a. Calls on the Commission to closely monitor Google’s practices following the AdSense investigation; notes that Google is accused of reducing consumer choice by preventing third-party websites from sourcing search ads from Google’s competitors, and that these practices have allowed Google to protect its dominant position in online search advertising, at the expense of existing and potential competitors whom have been prevented from entering and growing in this area;
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 a (new) 23a. Encourages the Commission’s efforts to focus on the broader issue of competition enforcement in digital markets; strongly welcomes its coordinated actions on forcing “tech giants” to pay their “fair share” of tax;
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 6 a (new) – having regard to the Commission Notice of 19 July 2016 on the notion of State aid as referred to in Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union3a, _________________ 3a OJ C 262, 19.7.2016, p. 1
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Believes that a strict and impartial enforcement of competition policy can make a significant contribution to key political priorities such as a deeper and fairer internal market, a connected Digital Single Market, and an integrated and climate-friendly Energy Union;
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 b (new) 23b. Is concerned over the potential misuse of the large market share of online trading platforms; fears that a lack of competition can lead to excessively high fees harming small and medium sized enterprises and touristic regions; calls, in this respect, for a special investigation in trading platforms, considering the degree of concentration in the different submarkets and potentially abusive ranking criteria; asks in this respect to look into dominant hotel online booking platforms, in particular Booking.com;
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24.
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Encourages the Commission to
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 24. Encourages the Commission to ensure that it has a full complement of in- house high-tech engineers and specialists in cutting-edge technologies available to resolve specific digital economy cases as contracting out in this area might lead to implicit conflicts of interests;
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 a (new) 24a. Welcomes that in 2016, competition policy and enforcement actions continued to contribute to the implementation of the Digital Market Strategy; stresses that a single digital single market could create hundreds of thousands of new jobs and generate € 415 billion per year; notes at the same time that traditional market models of competition policy are often inadequate for the digital single market; calls, therefore, for greater attention to be paid to the new business models of digital companies and the adoption of new criteria for the assessment of digital companies; also calls for greater attention to be paid to the specific market structures in the digital economy;
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 a (new) 24a. Highlights the importance of current investigations in the pharmaceutical sector, given the accumulating evidence of market distortions in this field, including quantity restrictions, manipulated prices and barriers to the availability of generic medicines;
Amendment 206 #
24a. Calls on the Commission to examine the viability in the digital era of existing competition law instruments and concepts, particularly in the field of mergers;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 b (new) 24b. Welcomes the "unannounced inspections concerning access to bank account information by competing services" announced by the Commission on 6 October 2017; invites the Commission to remain vigilant on this issue, especially when the Regulatory Technical Standards on strong customer authentication and secure communication will enter into force;
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 24 b (new) 24b. Believes that digital companies might represent a particular challenge for competition authorities, notably when it comes to algorithms, artificial intelligence or the value of data; asks the Commission to evaluate what are the main challenges and how to respond to them in the field of digital competition;
Amendment 209 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Welcomes the efforts of the Commission to maintain regular contact with the members of Parliament’s competent committee; Asks the Commission to deliver more comprehensive feedback on the specific requests made in the European Parliament annual competition report;
Amendment 210 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 a (new) 25a. Stresses the importance of granting the same rights to all air carriers when flying to or from the EU; acknowledges that this is not always the case for EU airlines operating outside the EU which are subject to unfair practices affecting competition; regards investment in EU airlines crucial to growth in a competitive environment;
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 25 b (new) 25b. Welcomes the Commission's continued efforts regarding investigations into the aviation industry and calls on the Commission to tackle anti-competitive practices undermining consumer protection legislation;
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Asks the Commission to apply State aid rules strictly and uniformly to European airlines such as Alitalia and Air Berlin; believes that restructuring aid is one of the most distortive forms and that the same rules should be applied to national and low-cost carriers; Moreover, in the Lufthansa-Air Berlin acquisition deal, the Commission should carefully assess the impact on competition and potential harm to consumers, notably through higher prices in accordance to the EU's merger control process with particular attention to percentage of market share by incumbent operator on certain routes;
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Asks the Commission to
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Asks the Commission to apply State aid rules strictly and uniformly to European airlines
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Asks the Commission to apply State aid rules strictly and uniformly
Amendment 218 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Asks the Commission to apply State aid rules strictly and uniformly to all European airlines
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 26. Asks the Commission to apply State aid rules strictly and uniformly to European airlines
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Welcomes the efforts of the Commission to maintain regular contact with the members of Parliament’s competent committee and of the Working Group on Competition Policy of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs;
Amendment 220 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 a (new) 26a. Asks the Commission to investigate the dominant status low-cost airlines often hold on different air routes in Europe and the pricing patterns for the said routes; notes that such a position is often obtained through aggressive predatory market behaviour which eliminates competition from the market and ends up burdening consumers with higher tariffs and costs;
Amendment 221 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 a (new) 26a. Calls on the Commission to strictly apply state aid rules to railway undertakings as well; in particular those which have already benefited from restructuring aid in the past;
Amendment 222 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 b (new) 26b. Requests that the Commission carefully assesses all airline merger deals in accordance with the EU’s merger control procedure, including the impact of these deals on market competition and potential harm to consumers, most notably through higher prices and restrictions to direct access of destinations;
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 b (new) 26b. Urges the Commission to complete the implementation of the Single European Railway Area, ensure full transparency in the flows of money between infrastructures managers and railway undertakings, and verify that each Member State has a strong and independent national Antitrust regulator;
Amendment 224 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 c (new) 26c. Is concerned by the anti- competitive effects of common ownership by large institutional investors; believes that the fact that these investors hold a significant part of the shares of direct competitors in a same sector, among airlines companies for example, creates a quasi-oligopoly having adverse effects on consumers and the economy as a whole by limiting competition; Calls on the Commission to take all necessary measures to deal with possible anti-competitive effects of common ownership; furthermore, calls on the Commission to investigate into common ownership and to draw up a report to be presented to Parliament about the effects of common ownership on European markets, particularly on prices and innovation;
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 26 c (new) 26c. Stresses the importance of safeguarding the transparency of flight information, ensuring a level playing field in the market and ultimately protecting European consumers’ ability to make informed choices;
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Welcomes the revision of Regulation (EC) No 868/2004 in order to
Amendment 228 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Welcomes the revision of Regulation (EC) No 868/2004 on safeguarding fair competition, aimed at ensuring reciprocity and eliminating unfair practices, including alleged State aid to airlines from certain third countries; believes that transparency in the fair competition clause is an essential element to guarantee a level playing field; and that this Regulation or other appropriate legislative vehicles should prevent anticompetitive behaviour in ticket distribution, such as the imposition by certain airlines of surcharges or restricted access to airline information for those using booking channels other than their own;
Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Welcomes the revision of Regulation (EC) No 868/2004 on safeguarding fair competition, aimed at ensuring reciprocity and eliminating unfair practices, including alleged State aid to airlines from certain third countries; believes that transparency in the fair competition clause is an essential element to guarantee a level playing field; and that this Regulation or other appropriate legislative vehicles should prevent anti- competitive behaviour in ticket distribution, such as the imposition by certain airlines of surcharges or restricted access to information for those using booking channels other than their own;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Welcomes the efforts of the Commission to maintain regular contact with the members of Parliament’s competent committee in addition to the Structured Dialogue with Commissioner for Competition;
Amendment 230 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Welcomes the revision of Regulation (EC) No 868/2004 on safeguarding fair competition, aimed at
Amendment 231 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Welcomes the revision of Regulation (EC) No 868/2004 on safeguarding fair competition between EU air carriers and third country air carriers, aimed at ensuring reciprocity and eliminating unfair practices, including alleged State aid to airlines from certain third countries; believes that transparency in the fair competition clause is an essential element to guarantee a level playing field;
Amendment 232 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 27. Welcomes the
Amendment 233 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 a (new) 27a. Stresses that environmental externalities produced by the air transport industry should be carefully considered in the shaping of the EU aviation policy and legislation as well in the application of EU competition rules, in particular in the framework of the “advantage” and “compatibility” analysis of state aid measures; underlines in this respect that by internalising the “polluter pays principle”, the EU and Member States should achieve fair competition within the air transport sector as well as in the entire inter-model transport sector;
Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 a (new) 27a. Reiterates that aviation makes a vital contribution to the connectivity of the EU both internally between Member States and with third countries; it plays a crucial role in EU integration and competitiveness and makes a vital contribution to economic growth and employment; Notes that the EU's overall connectivity relies to a great extent on air services performed by EU air carriers;
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 27 a (new) 27a. Stresses, however, that neither an unacceptable trend towards protectionism, nor, on their own, measures to ensure fair competition can guarantee the competitiveness of the EU aviation sector;
Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 Amendment 237 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28.
Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Stresses that, in line with the current Commission Guidelines, and taking into account the need of connectivity of outermost and peripheral regions, all airports financed by the EU budget should be based on a positive cost- benefit analysis to avoid the financing of ghost airports in Europe; calls on the Commission to come up with a public list of such potential ghost
Amendment 239 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Stresses that, in line with the current Commission Guidelines, all airports financed by the EU budget should be based on a positive cost-benefit analysis to avoid the financing of ghost airports in Europe;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Welcomes and further encourages the efforts of the Commission to maintain regular contact with the members of Parliament’s competent committee;
Amendment 240 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Stresses that, in line with the current Commission Guidelines, all airports financed by the EU budget should be based on a positive cost-benefit analysis to avoid the financing of ghost airports in Europe;
Amendment 241 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 28. Stresses that, in line with the current Commission Guidelines, all airports financed by the EU budget should be based on a positive cost-benefit analysis to
Amendment 242 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 a (new) 28a. Notes that the Commission should account for the externalities that justify an integrated management of public infrastructure, such as airports or ports; stresses that the forced liberalization of transport services and infrastructures has often led to chaotic results, lowering social conditions of employment and the quality of transport services available to the final consumer;
Amendment 243 #
28a. Stresses the importance of safeguarding the transparency and neutrality of flight information, ensuring a level playing field in the market and ultimately protecting European consumers’ ability to make informed choices and therefore calls on the European Commission to abide by these principles when reviewing the Code of Conduct on CRS and the Air Services Regulation;
Amendment 244 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 a (new) 28a. Stresses the importance of safeguarding the transparency of flight information, ensuring a level playing field in the market and ultimately protecting European consumers’ ability to make informed choices and therefore calls on the European Commission to abide by these principles when reviewing the Code of Conduct on CRS and the Air Services Regulation;
Amendment 245 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 a (new) 28a. Stresses the importance of safeguarding the transparency of flight information, ensuring a level playing field in the market and ultimately protecting European consumers’ ability to make informed choices and therefore calls on the European Commission to abide by these principles when reviewing the Code of Conduct on CRS and the Air Services Regulation;
Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 28 a (new) 28a. Stresses the importance of safeguarding the transparency of flight information, ensuring a level playing field in the market and ultimately protecting European consumers ability to make informed choices and therefore calls on the European Commission to abide by these principles when reviewing the Code of Conduct on CRS and the Air Services regulation;
Amendment 247 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 Amendment 248 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 Amendment 249 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Calls on the Commission to ensure regular information and exchanges with Parliament on the preparation and implementation of EU legislation, international agreements and other soft law concerning competition policy;
Amendment 250 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 Amendment 251 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 29. Calls on the Commission to analyse the options to open up competition in the transport sector in order to complete the single market
Amendment 252 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 29. Calls on the Commission to open up competition in the transport sector in order to complete the single market, in particular in those Member States where public port and airport networks are managed and monopolised by
Amendment 253 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 29 29. Calls on the Commission to
Amendment 254 #
Amendment 255 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 Amendment 256 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 30 a (new) 30a. Notes the importance of a favourable regulatory framework for airports to attract and mobilise private investment; considers that the Commission's evaluation of the Airport Charges Directive, in conjunction with effective airline/airport consultation, should help clarify whether the current provisions are an effective tool to promote competition and to further the interests of European consumers, or whether a reform is needed;
Amendment 257 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 Amendment 258 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 Amendment 259 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Calls on the Commission to ensure regular information and exchanges with Parliament on the preparation and implementation of EU legislation, international agreements and other soft law concerning competition policy; would welcome equally regular exchanges with the national competition authorities, which enact the vast majority of decisions involving the application of EU competition rules;
Amendment 260 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 Amendment 261 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 31. Invites the Commission to
Amendment 262 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 31. Invites the Commission to look at
Amendment 263 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 a (new) Amendment 264 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 a (new) 31a. Considers that ensuring a level playing field for companies in the internal market also depends on decisively combating social dumping;
Amendment 265 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 b (new) 31b. Calls on the Commission to further address the long-term effects of the disrupted discussions on future legislation under the EU Aviation Strategy;
Amendment 266 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 b (new) 31b. Underlines that the application of competition rules to mergers must be evaluated from the perspective of the entire internal market;
Amendment 267 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 c (new) 31c. Welcomes the inception impact assessment and the public consultation on the food supply chain launched by the Commission;
Amendment 268 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 31 d (new) 31d. Calls on the Commission to take further action against unfair trading practices by larger commercial partners, particularly those which hamper farmers and consumers, to increase transparency and to enhance legal certainty in the food supply chain; considers it essential to empower farmers in the food supply chain through transparency measures to enable them to make well informed decisions which will offer serious benefits both to farmers and consumers; calls on the Commission to ensure competition policy takes into account agricultural producers’ and producers’ organisations' interests, by ensuring that competition and access to the internal market are fair;
Amendment 269 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Maintains that international cooperation is essential for the effective enforcement of competition-law principles in the era of globalisation; calls on the Commission, therefore, to vigorously promote international cooperation on competition-related issues;
Amendment 270 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 32. Calls on the Commission to analyse how
Amendment 271 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 32. Calls on the Commission to analyse how lack of competition in certain parts of the food supply chain could be affecting prices
Amendment 272 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 32. Calls on the Commission to analyse how lack of competition in certain parts of the food supply chain could be affecting prices and the viability of many agricultural producers, especially small- scale farmers;
Amendment 273 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 32. Calls on the Commission to analyse how lack of competition in certain parts of the food supply chain could be affecting prices and the viability of many agricultural producers and producers’ organisations;
Amendment 274 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 32. Calls on the Commission to analyse
Amendment 275 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 a (new) 32a. Welcomes the in-depth investigation by the Commission on the Monsanto-Bayer merger; is deeply alarmed by the fact that if the Monsanto- Bayer merger is approved, three companies (Chem China-Syngenta, Du Pont-Dow and Bayer-Monsanto) will own and sell up to 60 percent of world’s patented seeds and 64% of world’s pesticides/herbicides; points out that such level of concentration will undoubtedly lead to price rises, the increase of the technological and economic dependence of farmers on a few global integrated one- stop shop platforms, limited seed diversity, the direction of innovation activity away from the adoption of a production model that is respectful of the environment and biodiversity and finally to less innovation, due to reduced competition; asks, therefore, the Commission to carefully consider the context that several mergers are taking place simultaneously in the sector when looking at the level of concentration and the competitive effects of the merger on the various markets affected;
Amendment 276 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 a (new) 32a. Stresses that, according to the Special report No 24/2016 from the European Court of Auditors, Member States have in the past largely failed to comply with state aid rules; this is due to the fact that while the Commission has simplified state aid legislation to reduce administrative burdens and increase transparency, this has led to many mistakes being made by Member States in the design and implementation of aid schemes; calls on the Commission to support Member States’ audit authorities in terms of compliance and quality control with respect to state aid rules; recalls that DG Competition has three remaining open recommendations of which two are very important;
Amendment 277 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 a (new) 32a. It acknowledges the importance of having an interoperable European Electronic Toll Service for the scope of fostering mobility and consumer welfare within the EU. However, it pays a special attention to competition taking place in the sector as undertakings present on the market should benefit from a level playing field that is to be fostered by both: legislators and awarding authorities. In this resort, it follows with interest the recast of Directive 2004/53/EC and Decision 2009/750/EC on the interoperability of European electronic
Amendment 278 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 a (new) 32a. (33a new - protection of consumers against misleading or suggestive advertising) Calls on the Commission to oblige advertisers to declare or list only the characteristics of the ingredients actually present in the product and exclude those that are not contained therein unless the presence or absence of certain ingredients is related to congenital diseases;
Amendment 279 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 a (new) 32a. (New 34) Trade subsidies and preferences, such as GSP and GSP+, which are given to non-EU states to promote human and labour rights but which have also been shown as instrumental in promoting the EU's competitiveness on the international stage, must be adequately monitored and applied with attention to the impact on EU industries. For this reason, calls on the Commission to suspend the grant or preference if non-EU countries abuse them;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the Commission to monitor the implementation of directives linked to the completion of the single market, particularly in the energy, banking, and transport sector, and to enhance the enforcement of EU competition rules in order to avoid uneven application thereof in the Member States; points out nonetheless that the energy grid is a network-based infrastructure requiring special treatment, also in order to enable and foster self-consumption;
Amendment 280 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 a (new) 32a. Maintains the importance of establishing a coherent and workable regulatory environment by allowing for the adaptation of competition policy to agricultural specificities; notes that this would contribute to strengthening the position of farmers in the food supply chain by targeting the root causes of imbalances of power, thereby increasing market efficiency and legal certainty;
Amendment 281 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 a (new) 32a. Recalls that the Commission has been looking into tax rulings from Luxembourg to McDonald's since June 2014, that the Commission took the decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure in December 2015, and that no final decision has been taken so far; asks the Commission to make every efforts to reach a final decision soon in this case;
Amendment 282 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 a (new) 32a. Calls on the Commission to put in place a binding regulatory framework at EU level to combat unfair commercial practices in the food supply chain that adversely affect farmers;
Amendment 283 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 a (new) 32a. Takes the view that the adoption of the euro by those Member States that have not yet joined the single currency would strengthen competition conditions within the internal market;
Amendment 284 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 b (new) 32b. (New 35) Calls on the Commission to regularly assess the Member States’ effective protection of intellectual property rights which is an essential element of health competition policies. Trademark protection is essential in identifying and distinguishing products in the marketplace. Without trademarks and the ability to differentiate their products, it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, for manufacturers to enter into new markets. By focusing competition on price, it also makes it difficult for manufacturers with small market shares to strengthen their market position. The removal of trademarks or the limitations of its uses, therefore, creates a significant barrier to market entry, and undermines an essential aspect of free and fair competition in the EU;
Amendment 285 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 b (new) 32b. Points out that Parliament has already called on the Commission and the national competition authorities to respond to the concerns raised by the combined impact, both on the upstream part of the food supply chain and on distributors and consumers, of the rapid concentration of the distribution sector at national level on the one hand and the alliances being formed among large-scale distributors at European and international level on the other; believes that this structural change raises concerns about possible strategic alignments, a fall-off in competition, and reduced scope for investment in innovation within the food supply chain;
Amendment 286 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 b (new) 32b. (37 new) Calls on the Commission to enforce the transitional period stipulated in Directive 2008/118 EC already provided for regarding Romania and Greece, regarding duty exemption for goods supplied by existing tax-free shops to countries entering the European Union after January 2017;calls also for tax-free shops located outside airports or ports continue to operate for the same period as that provided for in similar cases, thereby upholding the principle of harmonization of RM legislation with EU Directives and DCFTA provisions, in particular Articles 110, 143 and 152, and the right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights;
Amendment 287 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 b (new) 32b. Strongly urges the Commission to assess how mergers in the agricultural sector could lead to a significant impediment of effective competition not by employing a narrowly designed test that merely focuses on the effects of a merger on prices and output but by assessing the full social costs of such mergers taking into account their broader impact on environmental protection, as it is obliged to do by virtue of Article 11 TFEU, and the international obligations on biodiversity to which EU Member States and the EU should abide to;
Amendment 288 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 b (new) 32b. Urges the Commission to oppose without delay the acquisition of Monsanto by Bayer; recalls that this acquisition would result in the creation of the world's largest integrated pesticides and seeds company, with leading portfolios in non- selective herbicides, seeds and traits, and digital agriculture; underlines that this very dangerous monopoly would strongly threaten EU agriculture and citizens;
Amendment 289 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 c (new) Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the Commission to monitor the implementation of directives linked to the completion of the single market, particularly in the energy and transport sector
Amendment 290 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 c (new) 32c. (38 new) Calls on the Italian Government to withdraw concessions for roads circumventing urban areas (ring roads) if tolls are being levied; specifically calls on Italy to withdraw the concession for the Naples ring road, which has, to all intents and purposes, become an urban road in terms of traffic volume;
Amendment 291 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 32 c (new) 32c. (New 36) Underlines the need to fight against collective boycott appeals as restrictions of competition by object; this is irrespective of the rationale leading to collective boycotts;
Amendment 292 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 33 33. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 7 a (new) – having regard to the Parliament´s Resolution on the Green Paper on Retail Financial Services of 17 October 2016;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the Commission to monitor the implementation of directives linked to the completion of the single market
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the Commission to monitor the implementation of directives linked to the completion of the single market, particularly in the energy sector, the digital single market, and transport sector, and to
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the Commission to monitor the implementation of directives linked to the completion of the single market, particularly in the energy and transport sector, a
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the Commission to
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the Commission to monitor the implementation of
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the Commission to monitor the implementation of directives linked to the completion of the single market,
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Stresses the need to deepen the single market, opening up for new completion and freedom of establishment in all sectors, underlines the need for structural reforms and fiscal consolidation in the framework of the Stability and Growth Pact, calls upon Commission that the credibility of the SGP is restored by securing that all member states follow the rules instead of calling for new rules and new institutions;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Notes that State aid can be a necessary tool to ensure the needed infrastructure and supply for both the energy and transport sectors, particularly in regards to the situation in Europe where a transition towards cleaner and more climate friendly energy supply and transportation systems is taking place;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Takes the view that current and savings accounts should not incur commissions for users unless they are linked to specific services;
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 7 b (new) – having regard to the Parliament´s Resolution on the Action Plan on Retail Financial Services of 23 October 2017;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Notes that State aid can be necessary to ensure the delivery of services of general economic interest (SGEI) including energy, transport and telecommunication; emphasises that state intervention is often the best policy tool to ensure services crucial for the support of isolated, remote or peripheral regions and islands in the Union;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Considers it important to guarantee competition in the intra- European market in financial services, including insurance, which entails safeguarding the possibility of cross- border acquisitions of the said services;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 c (new) 5c. Rejects the requirement for users to be based in the Member State in which the financial institution or insurance company is domiciled for the purposes of service provision, since this is incompatible with the goal of an internal market in retail financial services;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 c (new) 5c. Emphasises that the connectivity of peripheral island or regions is essential for sustaining and developing acceptable levels of economic and social initiative by maintaining vital business connections;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 d (new) 5d. Reminds the Commission, likewise, that financial institutions continue to cancel payment cards if the holder moves to another Member State, and calls once again for action to be taken in this respect, including by alerting national authorities;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 e (new) 5e. Stresses that access to cash via ATMs is an essential public service that must be provided without any discriminatory, anti-competitive or unfair practices and must not, therefore, incur excessive costs;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Calls on the Commission to reallocate adequate financial and human resources to its Directorate-General for Competition in order to cope with this DG’s increasing workload; notes that such an increase should go hand-in-hand with a strict separation of the DG’s organisational structures, between the departments that draw up guidelines and those that have the responsibility to apply those guidelines in specific cases avoiding a situation in which the Competition DG acts as the prosecutor, jury, judge and executioner;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Calls on the Commission to
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Underlines again that corruption in public procurement has serious market-distorting effects on European competitiveness; reiterates that public procurement is one of the government activities most vulnerable to corruption; highlights that in certain Member States, EU-funded procurement carries higher corruption risks than nationally funded procurement; calls on the Commission to continue its effort to prevent the misuse of EU funds and stimulate accountability in public procurement; also welcomes the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 9 – having regard to
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. In the context for next EU budget discussions, calls the EU Institutions to consider a separate operational budget to increase the efficiency and management of DG competition, modernizing its electronic and informatics tools for example;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Welcomes the advances made by DG Competition in the field of equal opportunities, including 36% of female representation in middle management;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 b (new) 6b. Calls on DG COMP to finalize the review of its financial circuits, in order to further improve the efficiency of its financial operations, in 2017 and present its findings before the competent committee in the European Parliament;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Takes note that EU rules do not establish target time frames for
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Takes note that EU rules do not establish target time frames for antitrust investigations as is the case for formal merger review deadlines and the common practice of many national competition authorities; notes that this implies that decisions are sometimes
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Takes note that EU rules do not establish target time frames for antitrust investigations as is the case for formal
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Calls on the Commission to adopt guidelines to limit the duration of antitrust investigations, in order to avoid uncertainty or excessive burden for businesses and shape a competitive landscape which is not detrimental to consumers, while ensuring that this does not jeopardize the ability of the Commission to scrutinize the cases under investigation; stresses in particular that the adoption of clear time frames should include appropriate safeguards in order to discourage the use of dilatory tactics by the undertakings under investigation;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Calls on the Commission to adopt guidelines to limit the duration of antitrust investigations, in order to avoid uncertainty or excessive burden for businesses and shape a competitive landscape which is not detrimental to consumers; longer and more flexible timeframes should only be allowed in complex cases where investigations are to be extended with regard to other undertakings;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Calls on the Commission to adopt guidelines to limit the duration of antitrust investigations and of proceedings for abuse of a dominant market position, in order to avoid uncertainty or excessive burden for businesses and shape a competitive landscape which is not detrimental to consumers;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 9 a (new) – having regard to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Report on Competition Policy 2016;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Calls on the Commission to adopt guidelines to
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Calls on the Commission to adopt guidelines to
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Calls on the Commission to
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Underlines th
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Underlines that while the speed of investigations has to be balanced with the need to adequately preserve the rights of defence,
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Underlines that while the speed of investigations has to be balanced with the need to adequately preserve the rights of defence,
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Underlines that while the speed of investigations has to be balanced with the need to adequately preserve the rights of defence,
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Notes that in order to improve speed of major Antitrust investigations, EC and stakeholders could increase the use of streamlined antitrust proceedings, for instance by making more use of confidentiality rings for lawyers and data rooms to allow companies to have access to the evidence against them; Antitrust authorities should be strict about the delays by companies in responding to the European Commission requests for information;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 11 a (new) – having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 4 February 2016 on the special situation of islands (2015/3014(RSP);
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Believes that the Commission could be more efficient if it organised pre-trial meetings, separately or collectively, with the parties under investigation, the complainants and other interested third parties, including workers' representatives and public authorities, in order to agree on targeted timetables and key issues of the file to be investigated;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Takes note that most of the decisions concerning antitrust issues and State aid are taken at national level, and believes that the Commission should guarantee the global consistency and independence of competition policy measures within the internal market, with the support of the European Competition Network (ECN); notes that in revising the implementation of competition policy, due account should be taken of the importance of the public sector in providing and managing goods and services where there are externalities that the market cannot properly account for;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Takes note that most of the decisions concerning antitrust issues and State aid are taken at national level, and believes that the Commission should guarantee the global consistency and independence of competition policy measures within the internal market, with the support of the European Competition Network (ECN); welcomes the Commission's proposal for strengthening national competition authorities with a view to the more effective enforcement of EU competition law;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Takes note that most of the decisions concerning antitrust issues and State aid are taken at national level, and believes that the Commission should guarantee the global consistency and independence of competition policy measures within the internal market, with the support of the European Competition Network (ECN);
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Takes note that most of the decisions concerning antitrust issues and State aid are taken at national level, and believes that, while respecting the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission should guarantee the global consistency and independence of competition policy measures within the internal market, with the support of the European Competition Network (ECN);
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Takes note that most of the decisions concerning antitrust issues
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Welcomes the Commission proposal for a “Directive to empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market”; considers that effective tools to tackle distortions of competition are crucial for the functioning of the internal single market, and that it is imperative to ensure that consumers and businesses can rely on the consistent application of EU competition rules throughout the Union; underlines that EU legislation should be equally enforced in all Member States; considers that the proposal is an important step in the right direction as it addresses the most problematic and divergent areas in EU competition law across Member States, namely the independence of national competition authorities, powers of investigation, the setting of fines, and leniency;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 b (new) 11b. Reiterates that the removal of obstacles present on national level significantly contributes to the effective and efficient enforcement of EU competition law; stresses that the independence of NCAs is especially important in maintaining the focus of competition law;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 12 a (new) Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Believes that the Commission should verify that national competition authorities (NCAs) are sufficiently equipped in terms of financial and human resources to guarantee their independence, and that it should submit an annual report
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Believes that the Commission should verify that national competition authorities (NCAs) are sufficiently equipped in terms of financial and human resources to guarantee their independence, and that it should submit an annual report to Parliament regarding this key point; calls on the Commission to consider seriously when NCAs question the Commission’s findings and opposes its decision and to inform the Parliament about these cases;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Believes that the Commission should verify that national competition authorities (NCAs) are sufficiently
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Believes that the Commission should verify that national competition authorities (NCAs) are sufficiently equipped in terms of financial and human resources to guarantee their independence
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Believes that the Commission should verify that national competition authorities (NCAs) are
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Believes that the Commission should verify that national competition authorities (NCAs) are sufficiently equipped in terms of financial and human resources
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Believes that the Commission should verify that national competition authorities (NCAs) are sufficiently equipped in terms of financial and human resources to guarantee their independence from political influence, and that it should submit an annual report to Parliament regarding this key point;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 a (new) 12a. Welcomes the strong emphasis on the independence of national competition authorities as an essential tool and prerequisite in ensuring that such authorities become effective enforcers of EU law, reiterates that the removal of obstacles present on national level significantly contributes to the attainment of this objective, stresses that the independence of NCAs is especially important in maintaining the focus of competition law and its enforcement;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 b (new) 12b. Considers that the emphasis on budgetary independence should be strengthened to ensure that NCAs have complete independence in the conduct of their activities, which would ensure more efficient and effective conduct of cases;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Calls on the Commission to
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the Report on Competition Policy 2016 of 31 May 2017 (COM(2017)0285), which can help restore a sufficient level of investment and innovation by creating a fair competitive environment; points out, moreover, that the future of Europe should be based on innovation; notes that, as a rule, the European Parliament is only involved in competition law through the consultation procedure and its influence therefore remains very limited compared to that of the Commission;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. Takes the view that a study on the awareness and understanding among undertakings, particularly SMEs, of EU competition law and state aid rules, could be useful in order to step up the enforcement of EU competition law and could also be helpful for guidance purposes;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. Highlights that global cooperation on competition enforcement helps to avoid inconsistencies in remedies and outcomes of enforcement actions and helps businesses to reduce their costs of compliance; supports an active participation of the Commission, national and where applicable regional competition authorities in the International Competition Network;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. Stresses the need to apply competition policy in a manner that is consistent with the European social acquis, including respect for the rights defined in the European Social Charter and the European Social Pillar and the relevant ILO Conventions;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 b (new) 13b. Takes the view that interim measures can be an important tool, particularly in the digital economy, to ensure that contraventions in the course of an investigation do not severely and irreparably damage competition; calls on the Commission to examine the available options either to speed up proceedings before the competition authorities for the application of Articles 101 and 102, or to simplify the adoption of interim measures; in this connection, calls on the Commission to carry out a study and submit its conclusions, and where appropriate a legislative proposal, to the European Parliament and the Council;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 b (new) 13b. Reiterates its support for international trade and investment agreements to include strong competition sections;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 c (new) 13c. Calls on the Commission, in connection with a possible reform of the Merger Regulation, to examine carefully whether current assessment procedures take sufficient account of circumstances on digital markets; takes the view that an adjustment of the assessment criteria for mergers in the digital economy might be necessary; further emphasises that the independence of the national competition authorities should be guaranteed not only in the application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, but also in the enforcement of the European merger rules; therefore stresses the need for equivalent EU-level rules in this area;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 c (new) 13c. Welcomes the constant efforts of the Commission to clarify the different aspects of the definition of state aid, as demonstrated in its Notice on the notion of State aid as referred to in Article 107(1) of the TFEU which constitutes an important building block of the State Aid Modernisation initiative; notes in particular the efforts to clarify the notions of 'undertaking' and 'economic activity’; observes nonetheless that it remains difficult, especially in the field of social affairs, to draw the line between economic and non-economic activities; further points out that is the role of the European Court of Justice to ensure the proper interpretation of the Treaty;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Reiterates that all market players should pay their fair share of tax; welcomes the Commission’s in-depth investigations into anti-competitive practices such as selective tax advantages and excess profit ruling systems; stresses that the reduction of tax fraud and tax avoidance is fundamental in order to consolidate sound public budgets and that Member States promoting tax avoidance by multilateral companies cannot continue to shelter with impunity behind Council unanimity rule on matters relating to taxation; calls on the Commission's Competition DG to step up its efforts in this direction, taking particular account of all the means afforded by the Treaties to combat distortions in the internal market, including those stemming from the tax rules of the Member States;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Reiterates that all market players should pay their fair share of tax; welcomes the Commission’s in-depth investigations into anti-competitive practices such as selective tax advantages and excess profit ruling systems; stresses that the Commission must have access to all relevant information exchanged between the national tax authorities, in order to ensure the effective analysis, from a competition law point of view, of questionable tax arrangements; stresses that the reduction of tax fraud and tax avoidance is fundamental in order to
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Reiterates that all market players should pay their fair share of tax; according to the principle that requires that a tax should be paid at the place where an economic activity has been carried out and a new value has been created; welcomes the Commission’s in- depth investigations into anti-competitive practices such as selective tax advantages and excess profit ruling systems; stresses that the reduction of tax fraud and tax avoidance is fundamental in order to consolidate sound public budgets;
source: 615.197
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2019-09-04Show (8) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/1 |
|
| committees/1 |
|
| committees/2 |
|
| committees/2 |
|
| committees/3 |
|
| committees/3 |
|
2019-07-06Show (19) Changes | Timetravel
| 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 EP 150New
Rules of Procedure EP 159 |
| procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
Old
ECON/8/09763New
|
| procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 54
|
| procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 52
|
| procedure/subject |
Old
New
|
2018-09-12Show (8) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/2/date |
Old
2018-04-16T00:00:00New
2018-03-01T00:00:00 |
| activities/2/docs |
|
| activities/2/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading |
| activities/3 |
|
| activities/4 |
|
| procedure/Modified legal basis |
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150New
Rules of Procedure EP 150 |
| procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052New
Rules of Procedure EP 52 |
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Procedure completed |
2018-02-23Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/committees |
|
| activities/1/type |
Old
Vote scheduled in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading |
| procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
|
2018-01-31Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/date |
Old
2018-02-22T00:00:00New
2018-02-21T00:00:00 |
2018-01-27Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/date |
Old
2018-02-21T00:00:00New
2018-02-22T00:00:00 |
2018-01-17Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/2 |
|
2017-12-08Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1 |
|
2017-10-11Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/committees/1/shadows/3 |
|
| committees/1/shadows/3 |
|
2017-09-30Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/committees/1/shadows/4 |
|
| committees/1/shadows/4 |
|
2017-09-28Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| other/0 |
|
2017-09-21Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/committees/3/date |
2017-08-30T00:00:00
|
| activities/0/committees/3/rapporteur |
|
| committees/3/date |
2017-08-30T00:00:00
|
| committees/3/rapporteur |
|
2017-09-19Show (5) Changes
| activities |
|
| committees |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure |
|