2018/2102(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Calls on the Commission to ensure that any future trade agreement provides a level playing field, particularly as regards competition and state aid; stresses that state aid should be allowed only in exceptional and justified cases that are regulated by law, so as not to distort competition on the market; recalls that “as companies go global, so must competition enforcers”, not least since the spread of ICTs and the emergence of the digital economy has led to excessive market and power concentration in some sectors; believes that global rules on competition and the highest level of coordination between competition authorities, including with respect to exchange of information in the course of competition proceedings, is a precondition for the development of global fair trade;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2 c. Emphasises the importance of the anti-subsidy instrument in tackling unfair global competition, and establishing a level playing field with EU state aid rules; in this context, regrets that in 2017 once again the People’s Republic of China registered the highest number of newly constituted trade barriers for European businesses and workers and the majority of European anti-subsidy cases;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission to step up its efforts to promote fair competition, including by combating the unjustified use of tariff barriers and subsidies, in the global market through stronger cooperation with other countries at forums such as the WTO, the OECD, UNCTAD, the G20 and the World Bank; 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 12th WTO Ministerial Conference towards guaranteeing fair international competition;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Despite strongly believing in its fundamental role, expresses concern over the alleged inability of the WTO to tackle non-market economies and to address the competitive distortions provoked by subsidies and state intervention; welcomes the USA, Japan and EU’s tripartite action to reform it accordingly;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission to increase its support for small and medium- sized enterprises in the EU so that they can both protect and enforce their rights in the event of unfair commercial practices, i.e. dumping and subsidisation by non-EU countries; 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 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission to increase its support for small and medium- sized enterprises in the EU so that they can both protect and enforce their rights in the event of unfair commercial practices, i.e. dumping and subsidisation by non-EU countries; in this respect, asks for the firm implementation of the new EU anti- dumping regulation, which for the first time enables the EU to elaborate social and environmental dumping margins.

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Draws attention to the importance of effective, harmonised EU customs checks in combating unfair competition; recalls on the importance of avoiding port shopping and competition among Member States, therefore calls for a stricter and more homogenous implementation of the Union’s Customs Code; notes with concern the OLAF conclusions that the “UK customs’ continuous negligence” deprived the EU of EUR 1.987 billion in revenues in lost duties on Chinese merchandise and calls on the United Kingdom to pay the EUR 2.7 billion fine as requested by the European Commission;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that the effective implementation of the sustainable development provisions of trade agreements is important for improving living conditions in partner countries and protecting European businesses from unfair competition; calls for the inclusion of binding and enforceable trade and sustainable development provisions in all bilateral trade partnership agreements currently negotiated by the EU; regrets the damages provoked by unfair competition, carbon leakage and delocalisation that resulted in a global surge of CO2 emissions and a lower employment rate in the EU; welcomes the introduction of environmental and social criteria in the reform of anti-subsidies and anti-dumping measures, nevertheless calls on the Commission to present a legislative proposal on the establishment of a European border carbon tax.

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that the effective implementation and the enforcement of the sustainable development provisions of trade agreements is important for improving living conditions in partner countries and protecting European businesses from unfair competition.

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Reminds that international trade and investment agreements should have a specific and strong competition chapter;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Calls on the Commission to step up its efforts to show ambition in opening up international public procurement markets and in increasing European companies’ access to public-private partnerships in third countries; considers it necessary to reduce asymmetries in access to public procurement contracts between the Union and third countries, namely in the US and China; calls on all EU trade partners to allow non-discriminatory access for European businesses and workers to their public procurement markets; welcomes the renewed discussion on the International Procurement Instrument (IPI),which establishes the needed reciprocity in cases where trade partners restrict access to their procurement markets, and calls on the European Council for its swift adoption; supports the Commission’s efforts in opening up third countries’ public procurement markets through bilateral trade partnerships; recalls that companies operating in non-market conditions and driven by geopolitical considerations could virtually beat every competitor in European public procurement tenders; calls on the Commission to monitor public procurement tenders and prevent European businesses and workers to suffer from the unfair competition coming from state-orchestrated companies;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Calls on the Commission to ~~step up~~maintain its efforts ~~to show ambition~~ in opening up international public procurement markets and in increasing European companies’ access to public-private partnerships in third countries; considers it necessary to reduce in the long term asymmetries in access to public procurement contracts between the Union and third countries; is of the view that more consideration should be given to the social and environmental standards applying in third countries, for instance by further integrating that dimension into the most economically advantageous tender (MEAT) criteria; for the sake of policy coherence with the Union's strategic climate objectives, calls on the Commission to consider limiting the access to the Union public procurement market for goods and services originating from third countries that do not abide by the commitments undertaken under the Paris Agreement;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Points out that combating unfair trading practices, including through competition policy, is necessary to ensure a global level playing field which benefits workers, consumers and businesses, and is one of the priorities of the EU’s commercial strategy; emphasises that the reflection paper on harnessing globalisation states that the Union must take steps to restore fair conditions of competition; welcomes the inclusion of provisions on competition policies in the Economic Partnership Agreement with Japan and in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada, 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 incorporating ambitious provisions on competition in all trade agreements and of enforcing their implementation with a view to guarantee fair rules;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Is of the view that, in the perspective of a more integrated European industrial policy, the EU should consider the establishment of a "Buy European Act" setting up the requirement that companies locate at least 50% of their production within the Union, with a view to establishing a level-playing field on the international public procurement market.

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Underlines the importance of global cooperation on competition enforcement, encourages an active involvement of the Commission and the national competition authorities in the International Competition Network;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2 b. Welcomes the proposal for the establishment of a European framework for foreign direct investments screening considering it a useful instrument to protect European business of strategic interest from unfair trade practices that may harm security and public order and to safeguard the respect of fair competition principles in the EU;

source: 627.572

2018/10/15 AGRI 99 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas Article 42 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) ~~allows the agricultural sector to derogate from the rules of competition law~~states that rules on competition shall apply to production of and trade in agricultural products only to the extent determined by the European Parliament and the Council, taking account of the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) set out in Article 39 TFEU;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Recital D

D. whereas Article 39 TFEU ~~gives~~sets out the CAP ~~the objective of ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community~~objectives, to increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production, to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, to stabilise markets, to assure the availability of supplies and to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Recital D

D. whereas Article 39 TFEU gives the CAP the objective of ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community; whereas the future CAP should likewise aim to foster a smart, resilient and diversified agricultural sector ensuring food security; to bolster environmental care and climate action and to contribute to the environmental- and climate-related objectives of the Union; and to strengthen the socio- economic fabric of rural areas;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Recital D

D. whereas Article 39 TFEU gives the CAP the objective of ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, whereas this objective has obviously not been met, and whereas this is causing serious consequences for agricultural producers, their farms and rural zones as a whole;

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Recital D

D. whereas Article 39 TFEU gives the CAP the objective of ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by boosting the individual income of people working in agriculture, and of stabilising the markets and safeguarding supplies;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Recital D

D. whereas Article 39 TFEU gives the CAP the objective of ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture, stabilising markets and assuring the availability of supplies;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Recital D

D. whereas Article 39 TFEU gives the CAP the objective of ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by boosting individual income;

Amendment 16 #

Paolo DE CASTRO, Momchil NEKOV, Nicola CAPUTO, Tibor SZANYI

Draft opinion
Recital D

D. whereas Article 39 TFEU gives the CAP the objective of ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community and for those in Europe’s rural areas;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas, given the specific natural and structural characteristics of agriculture, the European legislator has, since 1962, consistently been defending the principle of granting a special status to the agricultural sector in the application of competition law, since that law can not be applied to this economic sector in the same way as with other sectors;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas the 2013 CAP reform, the 'Omnibus' revision and the European Commission's 2018 proposal aim to strengthen the position of farmers in the food supply chain;

Amendment 19 #

Daniel BUDA

Draft opinion
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas the specific objectives of the Directive on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the food supply chain seek to maintain market stability, enhance agricultural producers’ income and improve agricultural competitiveness;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas Article 42 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) allows the agricultural sector to derogate from the rules of competition law, which must be determined by the European Parliament and the Council;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Recital D a (new)

D a. whereas there has been a trend of consistently rising prices of agricultural inputs over recent decades 1b , while farm gate prices farmer receive for their produce have stagnated. _________________ 1b - Eurostat Data on Price indices of agricultural products (apri_pi); also Report of European Parliament on the farm input supply chain: structure and implications (2011/2114(INI)), recital B

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Recital D b (new)

Db. whereas the 'agricultural exception' has become more relevant in the context of a market-oriented CAP and the increasing globalisation of agricultural markets, and should continue to be taken into account in the design and implementation of policies and the monitoring of compliance with those policies by the Commission and the national competition authorities;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Recital D b (new)

D b. whereas significant horizontal and vertical restructuring is underway across food systems and a spate of mega-mergers is sparking unprecedented consolidation in the seed, agro-chemical, fertiliser, animal genetics and farm machinery industries, while creating ever-bigger players in the processing and retail sectors 1c _________________ 1c Too big to feed: Exploring the impacts of mega-mergers, consolidation and concentration of power in the agri-food sector. http://www.ipes- food.org/images/Reports/Concentration_E xecSummary.pdf

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Recital D b (new)

Db. whereas climate disasters, which affect farmers, have an impact on the market and weaken farmers' position in the food supply chain;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Recital D c (new)

D c. whereas even before the current wave of mergers between agrochemical- seed corporations, some crop species showed extreme market concentration and control by 4-5 international companies of between 75-95% of the European market 1a; Whereas most economists agree that 60% dominance is unhealthy for competition; _________________ 1a Study on Market Concentration in the EU Seed Sector http://extranet.greens- efa.eu/public/media/file/1/5728

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Recital D c (new)

Dc. whereas the agricultural component of the Regulation on the Financial Rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (2016/0282B) (the 'Omnibus Regulation') is an important step forward for the CAP, given that it sets out an explicit derogation for producer organisations from the application of Article 101 TFEU;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Recital D d (new)

Dd. whereas the request made to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling in Case C-671/15 ('endives') shows that producers, producer organisations and associations of producer organisations need greater legal certainty in the exercise of their activities, in particular given that this sector is characterised by highly fragmented supply, concentrated demand and difficulties in controlling supply and predicting demand; whereas the Court of Justice judgment concerning the application of competition rules to producers and producer organisations is of crucial importance in clarifying the implicit derogations connected with the work of producers' organisations;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Recital D d (new)

D d. whereas EU anti-dumping rules (2013/0103(COD)) that apply to the agricultural sector, amongst other sectors, consider that environmental dumping creates unfair competition;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Recital D e (new)

D e. notes that market speculation on food prices can distort the market, creating unfair competition within food supply chain; notes that food should not be treated as a commodity within financial markets;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Recital D f (new)

D f. whereas the high and rapidly increasing levels of concentration in the agri-food sector reinforce the industrial food and farming model, exacerbating its social and environmental fallout and aggravating existing power imbalances; whereas breaking up these power imbalances is of paramount importance in order to achieve the goals of the CAP;

Amendment 3 #

Paolo DE CASTRO, Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS, Momchil NEKOV, Nicola CAPUTO, Tibor SZANYI

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas Article 42 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) allows the agricultural sector given its unique characteristics and importance to derogate from the rules of competition law;

Amendment 30 #

Jan HUITEMA, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Elsi KATAINEN, Ulrike MÜLLER, Pavel TELIČKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Points out that, generally speaking, European competition policy is applied with the aim of systematically defending ~~consumers at the expense~~fair competition between all actors on the internal market, with special emphasis on the interests of consumers; considers that interests of agricultural producers;, considumers ~~that these two interest~~and European citizens should be placed on an equal footing;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Points out that, generally speaking, European competition policy is applied with the aim of ~~systematically~~ defending consumers, a~~t the expense~~n approach which – owing to the inequality within the food supply chain that means that pressure is only brought to bear ofn agricultural producers – is not achieving the desired results; considers that these two interests should be placed on an equal footing;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Points out that, generally speaking, European competition policy is applied with the aim of systematically defending consumers at the expense of agricultural producers; considers that ~~these two interests should be placed on an equal footing~~food security can only be a sustainable goal if it guarantees a fair standard of living for the farming community, and if the interests of producers and consumers are placed on the same level to this end;

Amendment 33 #

Miguel VIEGAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Points out that, generally speaking, European competition policy is applied with the aim of systematically defending consumers at the expense of agricultural producers; considers that these two interests should be placed on an equal footing; notes that this has effectively concentrated power into the hands of the large retail sector which is now clearly able to abuse its dominant position in every way at the expense of producers;

Amendment 34 #

Jan HUITEMA, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Elsi KATAINEN, Ulrike MÜLLER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Considers that interests of European citizens demanding a sustainable and environmental friendly society should be taken into account; recalls the cooperation of farmers and different entities on energy transition, animal welfare standards and climate mitigation and its friction with competition law; calls therefore on the Commission, taking into account the functioning of the single market and the benefits for the society as a whole, for exemptions from competition rules to facilitate cooperation, both horizontally and vertically, on sustainability initiatives;

Amendment 36 #

Mara BIZZOTTO, Angelo CIOCCA, Philippe LOISEAU, Jacques COLOMBIER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses that the ultimate goal of EU policies must be to ensure fair prices that are in line with production costs and reflect the quality of the production processes; points out that the European primary sector owes its competitiveness principally to its compliance with qualitative, environmental and social standards and that these values must not be undermined by 'predatory pricing' strategies;

Amendment 37 #

Mairead McGUINNESS, Paolo DE CASTRO, Angélique DELAHAYE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Calls on the Commission to take into account the effect on farmers, given their fragile financial circumstances and fundamental role in our society, of market distortions arising from trade agreements with third countries, since agricultural markets are typified by intense agricultural price volatility which exacerbates farmers' weak position in the food chain;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Welcomes the Commission's proposal to tackle unfair trading practices in the business-to-business food supply chain as a vital step in rebalancing power within the chain and bringing transparency to the buyer-supplier relationship; highlights its importance in achieving a more sustainable and competitive food supply chain for the benefit of farmers, consumers and the environment;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses that the concept of a ‘fair price’ should not be regarded as the lowest price possible for the consumer, but instead must be reasonable and allow fair remuneration of all parties within the food supply chain;

Amendment 4 #

Maria Lidia SENRA RODRÍGUEZ

Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)

B a. Whereas the European Commission set up an expert group in January 2016 (‘Agricultural Markets Task Force - AMTF’) with a view to improve the position of farmers in the food chain; whereas its final report presented in November 2016 makes suggestions, inter alia, on how to strengthen market transparency, how to improve contractual relations within the chain and to develop legal possibilities for organising farmers’ collective action;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Urges the Commission and the Member States to amend the competition rules to allow minimum prices for agricultural products to be set by means of collective bargaining;

Amendment 41 #

Mairead McGUINNESS, Jan HUITEMA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Stresses that consumers have further interests than low prices alone, including animal welfare, environmental sustainability, rural development, initiatives to reduce antibiotic use and stave off antimicrobial resistance, etc;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Encourages Member States' competition authorities to take account of the demand from consumers for sustainable food production which requires increasing account to be taken of 'public goods' value in food pricing; in this regard asks that European competition policy looks deeper than the lowest common denominator of 'cheap food';

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. Considers that EU competition policy has favoured consumers’ interests and failed to ensure adequate competition between large agribusiness corporations, which has led to excessive pressure on farmers;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Takes the view that the specific characteristics of agricultural activities make it essential to have collective organisations to enable the objectives of the CAP to be attained and that ~~such organisations must be considered compatible with~~collective activities carried out by producer organisations and their associations - including production planning sales negotiation and contractual arrangements - are necessary if the objectives of the CAP, as defined in Article 39 TFEU, are to be achieved, and so these activities are subject to a derogation from the application of Article 101 TFEU;

Amendment 45 #

Philippe LOISEAU

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Takes the view that the specific characteristics of agricultural activities make it ~~essential~~necessary to have collective organisations to enable the objectives of the CAP to be attained and that such organisations must be considered compatible with Article 101 TFEU;

Amendment 46 #

Norbert ERDŐS, Angélique DELAHAYE, Herbert DORFMANN, Albert DESS, Marijana PETIR, Franc BOGOVIČ, Jarosław KALINOWSKI, Daniel BUDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Takes the view that the specific characteristics of agricultural activities make it essential to have collective organisations to enable the objectives of the CAP to be attained and that such organisations must be considered compatible with Article 101 TFEU; Considers that, in line with the current direction, the competences of producer and interbranch organizations need to be further strengthened so that the negotiating bargaining power of farmers could be balanced with the negotiating power of retailers in the food supply chain; Considers that EU co-financing for the establishment and operation of these organizations should be increased;

Amendment 47 #

Miguel VIEGAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Takes the view that the specific characteristics of agricultural activities make it essential to have collective organisations to enable the objectives of the CAP to be attained and that such organisations must be considered compatible with Article 101 TFEU; stresses that the liberal economic model is not applicable to the agricultural sector, which is characterised by rigid supply patterns, necessitating the creation of public regulatory mechanisms to control production and protect the agricultural sectors and farmers' incomes in each Member State;

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Takes the view that the specific characteristics of agricultural activities make it essential to have collective organisations to enable all the objectives of the CAP ~~to be attained~~, and of initiatives promoting the biodiversity, sustainability and durability of agricultural production, to be attained, provided that such arrangements are beneficial to consumers and society, and that such organisations must be considered compatible with Article 101 TFEU;

Amendment 49 #

Daniel BUDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)

B b. Whereas producers do not engage sufficiently in collective price negotiations for several reasons, including the exemption in the Milk Package for milk processed by co-operatives from collective negotiations, and pooling thresholds that are too low to allow farmers to negotiate with dairies on an equal footing;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Takes the view that the specific characteristics of agricultural activities make it essential to have collective organisations, such as POs & APOs to strengthen the primary producers position in the food chain, so as to enable the objectives of the CAP to be attained and that such organisations must be considered compatible with Article 101 TFEU;

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Takes the view that the specific characteristics of agricultural activities make it essential to have collective organisations to enable the objectives of the CAP, as defined under Article 39 TFEU, to be attained and that such organisations must therefore be considered compatible with Article 101 TFEU;

Amendment 52 #

Georgios EPITIDEIOS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Takes the view that the specific characteristics of agricultural activities make it essential to have collective organisations and cooperation between the EU and Member States to enable the objectives of the CAP to be attained and that such organisations must be considered compatible with Article 101 TFEU;

Amendment 53 #

Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS, Momchil NEKOV, Nicola CAPUTO, Tibor SZANYI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Calls on the Commission to clarify the application of Articles 219 and 222 of Regulation (EC) No 1308/2013 with regard to taking steps in the event of market disturbances and severe market imbalances, because the legal uncertainty currently surrounding both articles means that no one is applying them for fear of failing to comply with rules laid down by the competition authorities in the Member States;

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. believes that all farmers should have the right to collective bargaining and that the CAP should no longer force them to come together in different forms: producer organisations, associations of producer organisations, cooperatives and inter-branch organisations;

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Takes the view that it is necessary to encourage producers to engage in collective price negotiations more strongly and effectively by raising pooling thresholds in collective negotiations and by including milk from co-operatives;

Amendment 57 #

Maria Lidia SENRA RODRÍGUEZ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that the inter-branch organisations model ~~is the most successful form of organisation, because it provides a structure for all the players in a sector; considers that this model should be promoted by the CAP~~can certainly contribute to greater transparency of market data, but practice shows that they cannot stabilise the market, because they group together producers and processors that have completely opposing interests with regard to quantities and prices on the market;

Amendment 58 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that the inter-branch organisations model is ~~the most successful~~a form of organisation~~, because it provides a structure for all the players in a sector; considers that this model should be promoted by the CAP~~ that involves all the players in a sector, and should be given the powers required to negotiate minimum farm gate prices for agricultural products;

Amendment 59 #

Jan HUITEMA, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Elsi KATAINEN, Ulrike MÜLLER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that the inter-branch organisations model is ~~the most~~a successful form of organisation, because it provides a structure for all the players in a sector; considers that different models of cooperation, such as this model should be ~~promoted by the CAP~~facilitated;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas the TFEU assigns primacy to the common agricultural policy (CAP) over competition law, and whereas this key principle must not be undermined under any circumstances;

Amendment 60 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that the inter-branch organisations model ~~is the most~~can be a successful form of organisation, ~~because it provides a structure~~however it must provide equality for all ~~the~~ players in athe sector; within its structure, considers that this model, properly structured, should be promoted by the CAP;

Amendment 61 #

Paolo DE CASTRO, Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS, Momchil NEKOV, Nicola CAPUTO, Tibor SZANYI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that the inter-branch organisations model is the most successful form of ~~organisation~~sector management, because it ~~provid~~gives a structure ~~for all the players in a sector; considers that this model should be promoted by the CAP~~to - and organises exchanges between - all the players in a sector by making it possible to transmit economic and technical information and better distribute the risks and benefits; considers that this model should be promoted by the CAP and be given all the necessary means for its potential to be fully exploited;

Amendment 62 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that the inter-branch organisations model is ~~the most~~a successful form of organisation~~, because it~~ in sectors in which farmers have previously been members of producers’ organisations subject to democratic scrutiny by the farmers themselves, as this model provides a structure for all the players in a sector; considers that this model should be promoted by the CAP;

Amendment 63 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Considers that the inter-branch organisations model is the most successful form of organisation, because it provides a structure for all the players in a sector; considers that this model should be promoted by the CAP to make the creation of inter-branch organisations easier at a European level;

Amendment 64 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Notes the different scales of competition, and that producers not well- suited to exporting on the global market should be empowered and helped by EU policy to compete on local and regional scales, thereby enriching rural economies and counteracting rural depopulation; notes in this respect the flexibility in competition rules needed, for example to allow for procurement rules giving preference to local producers, thereby creating shorter food circuits and reviving regional and rural economies;

Amendment 65 #

Paolo DE CASTRO, Ricardo SERRÃO SANTOS, Momchil NEKOV, Nicola CAPUTO, Tibor SZANYI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Reiterates the proposal that the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 authorising the introduction of supply control measures for cheeses with protected designation of origin (PDO) or a protected geographical indication (PGI) (Article 150), hams with PDOs or PGIs (Article 172) and wines (Article 167) should be extended to other quality branded products in order to make it easier for supply to be adapted to demand;

Amendment 66 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Calls on the Commission to facilitate the application of collective market management instruments in the event of a crisis, using tools that do not require public funds, such as product withdrawal carried out by means of agreements among food chain operators; points out that this measure could be applied by the inter-branch organisations themselves;

Amendment 67 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stresses that the concept of 'relevant market' in the Commission's assessment must be redefined and understood as meaning the whole of the sector concerned in order to rule out restrictive interpretations;

Amendment 68 #

Daniel BUDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Emphasises that the proposed cap on direct payments may seriously affect the competitiveness of medium-sized farms;

Amendment 69 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3 b. Expresses disappointment that the European Commission did not include in its proposal on the CMO any suggestions proposed by the Agricultural Markets Task Force;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas the TFEU and European jurisprudence assigns primacy to the common agricultural policy (CAP) over competition law;

Amendment 70 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Welcomes the fact that the omnibus regulation creates a procedure under which a group of farmers can request a non-binding opinion from the Commission on the compatibility of a collective action with the general derogation from the competition rules referred to in Article 209 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 (Single CMO Regulation); calls on the Commission, in the light of the recommendation of the Working Party on Agricultural Markets, to clarify the scope of the general agricultural derogation and its overlap with the derogations provided for under Articles 149 and 152, and thus to define exceptions more precisely, so as to make any necessary suspension of the application of Article 101 TFEU applicable and achievable;

Amendment 71 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3c. Points out that the individual ceiling for de minimis aid in the agricultural sector was doubled in 2013 (from EUR 7500 to EUR 15 000) in order to help cope with the surge in climatic, health and economic crises; points out that, at the same time, the national de minimis ceiling has been only marginally adjusted (from 0.75% to 1% of the value of national agricultural production), which has reduced states' power to help farms in difficulty; supports, therefore, the Commission's proposal to give more flexibility to the Member States and regions via the agricultural de minimis rules;

Amendment 72 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3 c. Considers that the costs of production must become the basis for price formation in contracts between retailers/processors and producers, guaranteeing at least cost-covering prices and taking into account production costs;

Amendment 73 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)

3d. Supports the Commission's proposal to give Member States more flexibility by relaxing state aid rules in the agricultural sector in an effort to encourage farmers to voluntarily make precautionary savings in order to better cope with the increase in climate and health risks and economic risks;

Amendment 74 #

Mara BIZZOTTO, Angelo CIOCCA, Philippe LOISEAU, Jacques COLOMBIER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 e (new)

3e. Stresses that, during periods of severe market imbalances, when the agricultural sector is at risk and all citizens are affected by the potential damage to the supply of basic foodstuffs, the market-oriented CAP must support farmers and grant additional exemptions for agreements and decisions between farmers, unrecognised organisations and recognised agricultural organisations, as long as they are temporary and fully justified under competition rules; welcomes the fact that it will be easier in future - thanks to the developments brought about by the Omnibus Regulation - to apply the provisions of Article 222 of the CMO Regulation, which allows for this kind of temporary derogation from competition laws; takes the view that it must be made possible for Article 164 of the CMO to extend the rules of an agreement or decision taken within recognised agricultural organisations under Article 222 of the CMO Regulation.

Amendment 75 #

Georgios EPITIDEIOS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 76 #

Norbert ERDŐS, Angélique DELAHAYE, Albert DESS, Marijana PETIR, Franc BOGOVIČ, Jarosław KALINOWSKI, Daniel BUDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that the entry of products onto the European market from third countries which do not meet the same social, health and environmental standards faces European producers with unfair competition; calls, therefore, for the systematic application of the principles of reciprocity and compliance as regards agricultural products in trade negotiations; Calls on the Commission to initiate new centralised food-safety inspections with regard to honey imported into the EU (here it should be magnetic resonance, NMR testing) and poultry meat (here mainly antibiotic residues needed to be analysed);

Amendment 77 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that the entry of products onto the European market from third countries which do not meet the same social, health and environmental standards faces European producers with unfair competition; calls, therefore, for the systematic application of the principles of reciprocity and compliance as regards agricultural products in trade negotiations; stresses that certification 'equivalence' must also be continuously verified and monitored and must be immediately revocable by the EU if its reliability is revealed to be undermined by fraud;

Amendment 78 #

Momchil NEKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that the entry of products onto the European market from third countries which do not meet the same social, health and environmental standards faces European producers with unfair competition; calls, therefore, for the systematic application of the principles of reciprocity and compliance as regards agricultural products in ~~trade negotiations~~currently ongoing and future trade negotiations; calls the Commission to consider in due course the option of revising the ones already concluded and those, which are already in force with the aim of preventing crises in the European agri-food sector;

Amendment 79 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that the entry of products onto the European market from third countries which do not meet the same social, health and environmental standards faces European producers with unfair competition; calls, therefore, for the systematic application of the principles of reciprocity and compliance as regards agricultural products in trade negotiations; calls on the Commission to integrate this aspect into the Brexit negotiations;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)

C a. Whereas by signing the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement, the European Union committed itself to ensuring coherence of all its policies with sustainable development, including its ecological, social and economic dimensions;

Amendment 80 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that the entry of products onto the European market from third countries which do not meet the same social, health and environmental standards faces European producers with unfair competition; calls, therefore, for the protection of vulnerable sectors in trade deals and for the systematic application of the principles of reciprocity and compliance as regards agricultural products in trade negotiations;

Amendment 81 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 82 #

Nicola CAPUTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Emphasises that access to the EU's internal market should be contingent on compliance with sanitary, phytosanitary and environmental standards; asks the Commission to promote equivalency of measures and controls between third countries and the European Union in the area of environmental and food safety standards, in order to guarantee fair competition;

Amendment 83 #

Momchil NEKOV

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. is concerned by the increasing amounts of counterfeit and illegal products such as pesticides, which enter the European Single market as visible from the Silver Axe III project for 2017 and calls for more efficient checks at all points of entry of the EU through better cooperation between the Customs and the respective competent authorities;

Amendment 84 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Notes that the highest standards of environmental and animal welfare can mean higher costs and hence that lowering standards can result in anti- competitive behaviour; Recommends the Commission to explore ways of extending the scope of competition policy to prevent such dumping within the single market and from imports to the single market;

Amendment 85 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Expresses concern about the market concentration and control allowed by the merger of giant agrochemical and seed companies. Expresses concern about the increasing market concentration and control in the agri-food sector, especially in the light of the recent decision to allow Bayer and Monsanto to merge and become “the world's largest integrated pesticides and seeds company” 1a ; Expresses concern because the EU- Commission admitted that it disregarded goals enshrined in the TFEU, notably food safety, protection of consumers, the environment and the climate, in its decision on the Bayer-Monsanto merger 2a ; _________________ 1a http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP- 17-2762_en.htm 2a European Commission – Press Release: Mergers: Commission clears Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto, subject to conditions, Brussels, 21 March 2018, available from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP- 18-2282_en.htm

Amendment 86 #

Mairead McGUINNESS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the interests of farmers are protected ~~following the~~by comprehensively assessing the impact of mergers and acquisitions of ~~Monsanto by the Bayer group, which could damage competition in the field of access to crop protection products and seeds~~agricultural input suppliers, including producers of plant protection products, at farm level; highlights that such mergers and acquisitions could damage competition; notes the acquisition of Monsanto by the Bayer group.

Amendment 87 #

Jan HUITEMA, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Elsi KATAINEN, Ulrike MÜLLER, Pavel TELIČKA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the interests of farmers are protected ~~follow~~when assessing ~~the~~an acquisition ~~of Monsanto by the Bayer group, which~~in relation to merger controls, which potentially could damage competition in the field of access to ~~crop protection products and seed~~essential products for farmers.

Amendment 88 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the interests of farmers are protected following the acquisition of Monsanto by the Bayer group, which ~~could damage~~it should never have accepted, and which poses a serious risk to competition in the field of access to crop protection products and seeds.

Amendment 89 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls therefore on the Commission to ensure that the interests of farmers ~~are protected following the acquisition of Monsanto by the Bayer group, which coul~~, the environment, biodiversity, climate, food security, consumer protection, social cohesion and jobs are protected following the acquisition of Monsanto by the Bayer group, which could, among other risks, reduce biodiversity of cultivated and wild plants, lead to a consolidation of lobby power by the newly formed agrochemical giant, and damage competition in the field of access to crop protection products and seeds.;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Recital C b (new)

C b. Whereas the following public interest concerns that relate to the agri- food system are enshrined in the TFEU and therefore must be integrated when decisions on mergers, acquisitions and competition are taken: - a social market economy (Article 3); - a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health (Article 9); - environmental protection with a view to promoting sustainable development (Article 11); - a high level of human health protection (Article 168); - economic, social and territorial cohesion (Article 175); - objectives of development cooperation (Article 208);

Amendment 90 #

Norbert ERDŐS, Albert DESS, Marijana PETIR, Franc BOGOVIČ, Jarosław KALINOWSKI, Daniel BUDA, Angélique DELAHAYE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the interests of farmers are protected following the acquisition of Monsanto by the Bayer group, which could damage competition in the field of access to crop protection products and seeds. Takes the view that the marketing standards for seed and plant propagating material for minor use should be eased and made more flexible.

Amendment 91 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the interests of farmers are protected following the acquisition of Monsanto by the Bayer group, which together control approximately 24% of the world pesticide market and 29% of the world seed market, which could damage competition in the field of access to crop protection products and seeds.

Amendment 92 #

Maria Lidia SENRA RODRÍGUEZ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the interests of EU farmers are protected following the acquisition of Monsanto by the Bayer group, which could damage competition in the field of access to crop protection products and seeds.

Amendment 93 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Urges the Commission and the Member States not to require farms’ regular applications to the public authorities to be made where this could be disadvantageous in practice, such as for example requiring use of the internet for daily applications where the internet speeds available are insufficient for this to be done as a matter of course.

Amendment 94 #

Nicola CAPUTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Fears that the acquisition of Monsanto by Bayer could reduce competition in a number of different markets resulting in higher prices, lower quality, less choice and less innovation; calls on the Commission to ensure effective competition so that farmers can have access to innovative products, better quality and also purchase products at competitive prices.

Amendment 95 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Asks for the introduction of the requirement for an impact assessment to be carried out for mega-mergers that also includes social and environmental impacts as well as effects on farmers, particularly small farmers and other public policy objectives enshrined in the TFEU;

Amendment 96 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls for checks on agricultural products at national border crossings to no longer be considered as a violation of fair competition, but as a necessary guarantee that European social, health and environmental requirements are being complied with.

Amendment 97 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5 b. Calls on the Commission to issue guidelines that clarify how to integrate the goals enshrined in the TFEU into future decisions on mergers, acquisitions and competition;

Amendment 98 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5 c. Is deeply alarmed at the far- reaching concentration of the food supply chain, whereby four companies, all with close financial ties, own and sell up to 60 % of the global seed market and 75 % of global pesticides, to the detriment of consumers, farmers, the environment and biodiversity alike; Points out that such an oligopoly will make farmers even more technologically and economically dependent on a few globally integrated one-stop-shop platforms, produce limited seed diversity, re-direct trends in innovation away from the adoption of a production model which is respectful of the environment and biodiversity and ultimately, as a result of reduced competition, generate less innovation;

Amendment 99 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 d (new)

5 d. Deplores that the purchase of staple crops for speculative gain can not only result in hunger and starvation but also distort market competition for these widely traded commodities; Calls upon the Commission to review MiFID II to curb speculation, creating fairer competition.

source: 629.385

2018/11/05 ECON 221 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 7, 8, 9, 11,12, 39, 42 and 101 to 109 as well as Article 174 thereof,

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 10 b (new)

– having regard of the Final Report on the e-commerce sector inquiry, published on 10 May 2017,

Amendment 100 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Underlines the fact that barriers to entry in the digital economy are becoming increasingly insurmountable, as the more that unjust behaviour is perpetuated, the harder it gets to revert to anti-competitive effects; affirms, in this regard, that the Commission should make effective use of interim measures, while ensuring due process and the right of defence of undertakings under investigation; calls on the Commission to issue guidelines on the duration of procedures used for purposes of merger control and of investigating abuses of dominant market positions;

Amendment 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Underlines the fact that barriers to entry in the digital economy are becoming increasingly insurmountable, as the more that unjust behaviour is perpetuated, the harder it gets to revert to anti-competitive effects; affirms, in this regard, that the Commission should make effective use of interim measures, while ensuring due process and the right of defence of undertakings under investigation; welcomes the commitment of the Commission to undertake an analysis of whether there are means to simplify the adoption of interim measures within the European Competition Network;

Amendment 102 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Underlines the fact that barriers to entry in the digital economy are becoming increasingly insurmountable, as the more that unjust behaviour is perpetuated, the harder it gets to revert to anti-competitive effects; affirms, in this regard, that the Commission should act in accordance with the speed of the market when making effective use of interim measures, while ensuring due process and the right of defence of undertakings under investigation;

Amendment 103 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Underlines the ~~fact that~~existence of barriers to entry in the digital economy ~~are becoming increasingly insurmountable, as the more that unjust behaviour is perpetuated, the harder it gets to revert to anti-competitive effects~~; affirms, in this regard, that the Commission should ~~make effective~~, where appropriate, make effective yet proportional use of interim measures, while ensuring due process and the right of defence of undertakings under investigation;

Amendment 104 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Underlines the ~~fact~~benefits of the digital economy for consumers and the society at large; recognizes at the same time that the barriers to entry in the digital economy ~~are becoming increasingly~~must not become insurmountable,; a~~s the more that unjust behaviour is perpetuated, the harder it gets to revert to anti-competitive effects; affirms, in this regard,~~ffirms, in this regard, that breaches of European competition law should be perpetuated and that the Commission ~~should~~ make effective use of interim measures, while ensuring due process and the right of defence of undertakings under investigation;

Amendment 105 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Underlines the ~~fact that~~existence of barriers to entry in the digital economy ~~are becoming increasingly insurmountable, as the more that unjust behaviour is perpetuated, the harder it gets to revert to anti-competitive effects; affirms, in this regard~~; considers in this regard that interim measures can be a useful tool for competition authorities to ensure that competition is not harmed while an investigation is on-going; affirms, therefore, that the Commission should make effective use of interim measures, while ensuring due process and the right of defence of undertakings under investigation;

Amendment 106 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Underlines the fact that barriers to entry in some areas of the digital economy are becoming increasingly insurmountable, as the more that unjust behaviour is perpetuated, the harder it gets to revert to anti-competitive effects; affirms, in this regard, that the Commission should make effective use of interim measures, while ensuring due process and the right of defence of undertakings under investigation;

Amendment 107 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Welcomes the EC Antitrust decision fining Google €4.34 billion for illegal practices regarding Android mobile devices to strengthen dominance of Google's search engine; calls on the Commission to conclude in 2019 the Google Shopping antitrust case that was launched in November 2010, 8 years ago. Reminds the Commission to conclude the investigation of Google's treatment in its search results of other specialised Google search services, including the issues related to local search that Yelp raised in its recent complaint; recommends to the Directorate-General for Competition to reflect on the length of digital antitrust cases and to reflect on the most appropriate tool for addressing those; notably asks the Commission to consider the possibility of setting deadlines for antitrust cases such as in merger cases;

Amendment 108 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Considers that digital markets need to be assessed from a multi- disciplinary perspective; recalls that an anti-competitive behaviour can entail a breach of other areas of law such as data protection and consumer laws; stresses that an appropriate enforcement response would require that different competent authorities work together, in particular the competition, consumer and data protection authorities as suggested by the European Data Protection Supervisor initiative for a Clearing House;

Amendment 109 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Welcomes the Commission's proposal on laying down rules on the taxation of the digital economy; stresses that the global nature of the digital economy, reflects the importance of finding international solutions and common tax rules to the taxation of the digital economy; calls on the Commission to continue its efforts within international fora, namely with the OECD, to find such an agreement;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 10 c (new)

– having regard of the judgement in case C-411/15P Timab of 12 January 2017,

Amendment 110 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Welcomes the Commission's commitment that it will undertake an analysis of whether there are means to simplify the adoption of interim measures within the European Competition Network within two years from the date of transposition of the ECN+ Directive; recommends in this regard that the Commission learns from best practices in other jurisdictions;

Amendment 111 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Welcomes the Commission’s proposal on the digital services tax as a crucial measure to ensure that the digital sector pays its fair share of taxes until a permanent solution is adopted that will allow profits to be taxed where value is created;

Amendment 112 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Stresses that the Commission must also look at ways of denying access to relevant technical interfaces as a potential abuse of a dominant position;

Amendment 113 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Believes that tax policy and competition policy should be seen as two sides of the same coin in the internal market;

Amendment 114 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Welcome the fact that the Task force on state aid in the form of a tax advantage becomes permanent body; calls for the team to be sufficiently equipped in human resources and investigation tools; calls for a clear state of play in the investigations on state aid concerning tax advantages, including the number of cases being investigated;

Amendment 115 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Recommends that the European Commission carries out a sector inquiry into the advertising market to be able to understand the dynamics of the online advertising market and identify anti- competitive practices that need to be addressed under competition law enforcement as done by some national authorities;

Amendment 116 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Calls for the Council to adopt the proposal on a common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB) in order to eliminate distortions of competition in the field of taxation and push back against the downward trend in corporate tax rates in Member States;

Amendment 117 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Reiterates the need for the Commission to also consider the full structural unbundling of digital tech monopolies as a possible solution to restore competition and a level playing field within the European digital market;

Amendment 118 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. 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 119 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 c (new)

7c. Regrets that under EU state aid rules, unpaid taxes recovered from beneficiaries of illegal tax aid are returned the country that granted the aid, rather than to the countries that have suffered an erosion of their tax bases as a result of distortive tax schemes; calls on the Commission, to this end, to develop appropriate methodologies for quantifying the revenue loss for the Member States affected and adequate recovery procedures for ensuring that unpaid taxes are distributed to the Member States in which the economic activity actually took place;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A (new)

A. whereas competition policy needs to take particular account of the objectives of social cohesion and sustainable development;

Amendment 120 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 c (new)

7c. Highlights that the effectiveness of competition law enforcement depends on the appropriate design and testing of remedies; stresses that consumer-facing remedies are important to restore competitiveness in a market by helping consumers to make informed decisions and address status quo biases; is of the opinion that the European Commission when designing behavioural remedies shall incorporate behavioural economics as a supporting discipline as some national authorities have done in the recent years;

Amendment 121 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 c (new)

7c. Takes note of the closure of the Commission’s investigation into McDonald’s tax practices; regrets that the current European legislation is unfit to effectively combat double non-taxation; urges the Member States to adopt public country-by-country reporting to ensure transparency as to where companies create value, and to agree on a minimum corporate tax rate to put an end to the race to the bottom;

Amendment 122 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 d (new)

7d. Notes that the President of the Commission has committed to put forward proposals to enhance greater tax cooperation between Member States through an obligation to answer group requests in tax matters, so that one Member State can provide all information necessary to others to prosecute cross- border tax evaders, and also to make tax reform proposals under Article 116 TFEU, involving co-decision between the Council and the European Parliament, in order to eliminate distortion of the conditions of competition in the internal market;

Amendment 123 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 d (new)

7d. Reiterates that all market players should pay their fair share of tax; strongly welcomes the Commission’s in-depth investigations into anti-competitive practices such as selective tax advantages and excess profit ruling systems;

Amendment 124 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 e (new)

7e. Takes the view raises serious concerns with regards fair competition in Europe, especially if the UK will not be bound to respect State aid rules and, upon leaving the EU, agrees to grant tax rulings to companies; stresses that negotiations should include the respect of fair competition and a guarantee that the UK should not be able to grant state aid in the form of sweetheart deals; calls on the Member States and the EU institutions to ensure, in the post-Brexit scenario, full compliance with European competition laws to further strengthen the Single Market;

Amendment 125 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 e (new)

7e. Reiterates that all market players should pay their fair share of tax; strongly welcomes the Commission’s in-depth investigations into anti-competitive practices such as selective tax advantages and excess profit ruling systems;

Amendment 126 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 f (new)

7f. Welcomes the guidance provided in the Commission notice on the notion of state aid covering tax rulings specifically;

Amendment 127 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 g (new)

7g. Recalls that a common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB) is vital to eliminate distortions of competition, race to the bottom and reduce the appeal of concluding opaque tax agreements between certain multinationals and Member States;

Amendment 128 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 h (new)

7h. Acknowledges that the Commission concluded that Luxembourg granted undue tax benefits to Engie of around €120 million, and that the recovery procedure is still ongoing; regrets that the Luxembourg Government has decided to appeal the decision of the European Commission;

Amendment 129 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 i (new)

7i. Takes notes of the decision of the Commissioner for Competition, Margrethe Vestager, on the investigation concerning state aid to McDonalds, which stated that the non-taxation of certain McDonald's profits in Luxembourg do not constitute an illegal state aid; takes the view that current EU-regulation is unfit to effectively combat double non-taxation and to stop the race to the bottom on corporate tax levels;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B (new)

B. whereas competition policy has now been in place for over sixty years and a strong and effective EU competition policy has always been a cornerstone of the European project;

Amendment 130 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Points to the discrepancies between the rules on state aid in the area of liquidation aid and the resolution regime under the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD); points out that in two recent cases, in spite of the Single Resolution Board’s (SRB) conclusions that resolution could not be justified on the grounds of public interest, the Commission approved state aid on the basis that it would mitigate economic disturbance at a regional level, thereby demonstrating two distinct interpretations of public interestout that rules for precautionary recapitalization need to be clarified; urges the Commission, therefore, to reconsider ~~its interpretation of~~review the relevant state aid rules ~~in a manner consistent with the BRRD and to revise its 2013 Banking Communication accordingly, including the area of liquidation aid~~and BRRD provisions to ensure consistency;

Amendment 131 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Points to the discrepancies between the rules on state aid in the area of liquidation aid and the resolution regime under the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD); underlines the lack of harmonisation between the BRRD and the 2013 Banking Communication, especially as regards to the business reorganisation plan established by the BRRD and the restructuring plan established by the 2013 Banking Communication, in some specific resolutions where the Fund would be used as liquidation aid; points out that in two recent cases, in spite of the Single Resolution Board’s (SRB) conclusions that resolution could not be justified on the grounds of public interest and that the SRB could not rely on proper information issued by its independent expert, the Commission approved state aid on the basis that it would mitigate economic disturbance at a regional level, thereby demonstrating two distinct interpretations of public interest; urges the Commission, therefore, to reconsider its interpretation of the relevant state aid rules in a manner consistent with the BRRD and to revise its 2013 Banking Communication accordingly, including the area of liquidation aid;

Amendment 132 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. ~~Points to th~~Calls on Commission to examine possible discrepancies between the rules on state aid in the area of liquidation aid and the resolution regime under the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD); ~~points out that in two recent cases, in spite of the Single Resolution Board’s (SRB) conclu~~urges the Commissions that resolution could not be justified on the grounds of public interest, the Commission approved state aid on the basis that it would mitigate economic disturbance at a regional level, thereby demonstrating two distinct interpreo come forward with a transparent presentations of public interest; urges the Commission, therefore, to reconsider its interpretation of the relevant state aid rules in a manner consistent with the BRRD and to revise its 2013 Banking Communication accordingly, including the area of liquidation aidits interpretation of the relevant state aid rules in relation to the BRRD;

Amendment 133 #

Danuta Maria HÜBNER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Points to the discrepancies between the rules on state aid in the area of liquidation aid and the resolution regime under the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD); points out that in two recent cases, in spite of the Single Resolution Board’s (SRB) conclusions that resolution could not be justified on the grounds of public interest, the Commission approved state aid on the basis that it would mitigate economic disturbance atbelieves that this asymmetry should be corrected once legacy issues a re~~gional le~~ solveld, thereby demonstrating two distinct interpretations of public interest; urges the Commission, therefore, to reconsider its interpretation of the relevant state aid rules in a manner consistent with the BRRD and to revise its 2013 Banking Communication accordingly, including the area of liquidation aidin order to ensure common rules and a level playing field for all banks, investors and creditors in the Banking Union;

Amendment 134 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Points to the discrepancies between the rules on state aid in the area of liquidation aid and the resolution regime under the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD); points out that in two recent cases, in spite of the Single Resolution Board’s (SRB) conclusions that resolution could not be justified on the grounds of public interest, the Commission approved state aid on the basis that it would mitigate economic disturbance at a regional level, thereby demonstrating two distinct interpretations of public interest; urges the Commission, therefore, to reconsider its interpretation of the relevant state aid rules in a manner consistent with the BRRD and to revise its 2013 Banking Communication accordingly, including the area of liquidation aid; regrets, on the other hand, that aid to the banking sector since the beginning of the financial crisis has been insufficiently scrutinised and that current rules have not been effective in protecting taxpayers or in guaranteeing a level playing field in the banking sector;

Amendment 135 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Recalls that the definition of “failing or likely to fail” was labelled by the SRB in its annual conference of 15 October 2018 as raising extremely difficult questions; underlines the necessity to revise this definition in order to ease future resolution procedures, also when liquidation aid might be involved; recalls that the first European resolution ever made to a bank, Spain’s Banco Popular, has been controversial and is still a matter of denunciation by its shareholders, who also wish their voice heard in this Parliament;

Amendment 136 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Observes that a number of 1a studies have demonstrated the hidden social cost and reduced product competition corresponding to higher levels of horizontal ownership concentration; calls therefore, the European Commission to consider revising the Merger regulation in this sense and provide guidelines on the use of Article 101 and 102 TFEU in such cases; __________________ 1a Common Ownership by Institutional Investors and its Impact on Competition, OECD, 5-6 December 2017

Amendment 137 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Stresses that temporary state aid to the financial sector for the stabilisation of the global financial system was necessary but that it nevertheless must be scrutinised and quickly reduced or totally removed;

Amendment 138 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Stresses in this perspective the importance of a restrictive approach to state aid;

Amendment 139 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 c (new)

8c. Calls on Commission to launch a roadmap for less but better targeted state aid, with the aim to reduce it;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C (new)

C. whereas tax evasion and tax avoidance create unfair competition, especially affecting small and medium- sized enterprises;

Amendment 140 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Reiterates its request for the Commission to examine whether banking institutions have, since the onset of the crisis, benefited from implicit subsidies and state aid through the provision of liquidity support from central banks; recalls the commitment made by Commissioner Vestager at the structured dialogue with Parliament’s ECON committee in November 2017 to reflect on possible distortions of competition arising from the ECB’s Corporate Sector Purchase Programme and to report back with a qualitative answer; calls on the Commission to present, within six months, a study on this subject for discussion by the European Parliament; notes that such government aid for banks has significantly reduced public funding for universal services such as education and health; points out that it has, as a result, substantially undermined the related public and private economic sectors;

Amendment 141 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

Amendment 142 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Reiterates its request for the Commission to examine whether banking institutions have, since the onset of the crisis, benefited from implicit subsidies and state aid through the provision of liquidity support from central banks; recalls the commitment made by Commissioner Vestager at the structured dialogue with Parliament’s ECON committee in November 2017 to reflect on possible distortions of competition arising from the ECB’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 143 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

Amendment 144 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. 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; notes in particular the efforts to clarify the notions of 'undertaking' and 'economic activity’; points out that nature conservation activities, accessible to the general public free of charge or for which a monetary contribution is paid that only covers a fraction of the true costs, fulfil a purely social and cultural purpose which is non- economic in nature; 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 it is the role of the European Court of Justice to ensure the proper interpretation of the Treaty;

Amendment 145 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Calls for common EU minimum effective corporate tax rate to stop aggressive tax competition and the current race to the bottom which deprives Member States of crucial public resources and disproportionally benefits large multinationals in detriment of SMEs; Welcome in that regard, the FR and DE declaration to support global discussion on minimum effective tax rate in the forthcoming G7 meeting;

Amendment 146 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Welcomes the introduction by the European Commission of an anonymous whistle-blower tool, enabling the reporting of cartels, or other types of illegal anti-competitive practices, thus increasing the likelihood of their detection and prosecution; notes the positive figures after the first months of use;

Amendment 147 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. 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 148 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Underlines that when applying state aid in order to promote services of general interest the aim should be to benefit the consumers and citizens, rather than strengthening old structures, individual companies or public entities;

Amendment 149 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Underlines the distortive effect State aid can have on the functioning of the internal market; recalls the strict requirements for the application of Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D (new)

D. whereas money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion undermine the fair distribution of tax revenues in the Member States, and therefore distort competition in the internal market;

Amendment 150 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)

9b. Stresses that Europe needs a strong harmonised framework on reporting and corporate taxation for multinational companies, with public country-by-country reporting a common corporate consolidated tax base; recalls that, in addition to cost reductions for both firms and the tax administrations of Member States, the adoption of these measures would solve the issue of transfer pricing and ensure fairer competition within the single market;

Amendment 151 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)

9b. Underlines that the application of competition rules to mergers must be evaluated from the perspective of the entire internal market;

Amendment 152 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 c (new)

9c. Calls on the Commission to continue evaluating harmful tax measures in the Member States in the European Semester, and fully assess the distortions of competition and spill-over effects on other jurisdictions;

Amendment 153 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 d (new)

9d. Calls on the Commission to use the procedure laid down in Article 116 TFEU on taxation matters, so as to circumvent the unanimity requirement in cases where the Commission finds that a difference between the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States is distorting the conditions of competition in the internal market;

Amendment 154 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 e (new)

9e. Calls on the Commission to continue and even expand its efforts as regards to investigations on the abuse of dominant market positions towards consumers in the EU; Requests that, simultaneously, the Commission monitors existing government monopolies and the lawfulness of concession tenders in order to prevent any excessive distortion of competition;

Amendment 155 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Is deeply alarmed at the far- reaching~~Takes note of the concentration of the food supply chain, whereby four companies, all with close financial ties, own and sell up to 60 % of the global seed market and 75 % of global pesticides, to the detriment of consumers, farmers, the environment and biodiversity alike; points out that such an oligopoly will make farmers even more technologically and economically dependent on a few globally integrated one-stop-shop platforms, produce limited seed diversity, re-direct trends in innovation away from the adoption of a production model which is respectful of the environment and biodiversity and ultimately, as a result of reduced competition, generate less; stresses in this regard the need for fair competition and more innovation;

Amendment 156 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Is deeply~~is alarmed at the far- reaching concentration of the food supply chain, whereby four companies, all with close financial ties, own and sell up to 60 % of the global seed market and 75 % of global pesticides, to the detriment of consumers, farmers, the environment and biodiversity alike; points out that such an oligopoly; points out that concentration of the food supply chain will make farmers ~~even~~ more technologically and economically dependent on a few globally integrated one-stop-shop platforms, produce limited seed diversity, re-direct trends in innovation away from the adoption of a production model which is respectful of the environment and biodiversity and ultimately, as a result of reduced competition, generate less innovation; calls on the Commission to analyse concentration in the food supply chain with particular reference to monopsonies;

Amendment 157 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Is deeply alarmed at the far- reaching concentration of the food supply chain, whereby four companies, all with close financial ties, own and sell up to 60 % of the global seed market and 75 % of global pesticides, to the detriment of consumers, farmers, the environment and biodiversity alike; points out that such an oligopoly will make farmers and consumers even more technologically and economically dependent on a few globally integrated one-stop-shop platforms, produce limited seed diversity, re-direct trends in innovation away from the adoption of a production model which is respectful of the environment and biodiversity and ultimately, as a result of reduced competition, generate less innovation and a lower quality of end products; notes that small-scale farmers are those most negatively affected through a concentrated food market structure;

Amendment 158 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Is deeply alarmed at the far- reaching~~Notes the concentration of the food supply chain, whereby four companies, all with close financial ties, own and sell up to 60 % of the global seed market and 75 % of global pesticides, to the potential detriment of consumers, farmers, the environment and biodiversity alike; ~~points out that such an oligopoly will make farmers even m~~urges the Commission to remain vigilant and strictly enforce technologically and economically dependent on a few globally integrated one-stop-shop platforms, produce limited seed diversity, re-direct trends in innovation away from the adoption of a production model which is respectful of the envirarticle 102 prohibiting the abuse of a dominant position as well as its merger control procedures, enshrined in Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of conmcent ~~and biodiversity and ultimately, as a result of reduced competition, generate less innovation~~rations between undertakings;

Amendment 159 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Welcomes the Commission decision to open an in-depth investigation to assess whether the 900 million bridge loan given to Italian airline Alitalia constitutes state aid and whether it complies with EU rules for aid to companies in difficulty; Notes that Italian authorities have been asked to provide clarifications about several issues, such as the acquisition of new uniforms, the building of a new lounge and whether interest has been paid to the State on the EUR 900 million loan. Calls the Commission to be strict with Italian authorities in particular with regards Point 55 of the EC Rescue and restructuring rules.1a The Commission must set the standards in order to avoid other companies imitating this kind of behaviour and wasting taxpayers money; __________________ 1a https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:5200 4XC1001(01)&from=EN

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E (new)

E. whereas massive tax avoidance by high net worth individuals and enterprises not only penalises ordinary taxpayers, public finances and social spending, but also threatens good governance, macroeconomic stability, social cohesion and public trust in Union and Member States' institutions;

Amendment 160 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Regards it as essential for the Commission to monitor more closely the use of patents in agriculture; notes that abuse of this practice forces farmers to strive for production targets that limit their market choices, impoverishing crop biodiversity, distorting competition and limiting innovation; notes that the recommended measures will encourage the development of an agro-industrial model fostering transition towards organic and ecologically sustainable farming;

Amendment 161 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Recognises the potential of blockchain technology for financial services; warns however that the use of this technology for fundraising must be regulated to avoid excessive dumping vis- vis regulated financial markets, risks for investors as well as money laundering risks; in this regard, calls on the Commission to propose a regulatory framework for initial coin offerings (ICOs);

Amendment 162 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Welcomes initiatives such as the Smart Villages framework which stimulates settlements to become more agile, make better use of their resources and take part more actively in the competition of the Single Market as well as improve their attractiveness and the quality of life of rural residents;

Amendment 163 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Expresses concern about the recent approval of the Bayer and Monsanto merger by the European Commission and its acknowledgement that it disregarded in its decision goals enshrined in the TFEU, notably food safety, protection of consumers, the environment and the climate;

Amendment 164 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Welcomes the approach taken by the Commission when they are assessing horizontal mergers to increasingly focus on innovation competition, particularly in mergers involving R&D intensive markets

Amendment 165 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)

10b. Asks the Commission to analyse carefully the significant potential harmful impact of the proposed Siemens / Alstom merger on the competitiveness of the European rail market and its adverse effects on rail users; who would be faced with higher prices, less choice and lower levels of service, quality, and innovation. The proposed merger will probably harm the market for high-speed rolling stock, for mainline and metro trains, as well as the entire rail infrastructure by creating a dominant position in signalling in the EU, and specifically in Member States such as Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Romania, Spain and the United Kingdom;

Amendment 166 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)

10b. Calls on the Commission, in view of diminished farm incomes affecting small farmers in particular, to channel its efforts towards ensuring decent earnings for farmers, especially small and medium- sized farmers; believes it important to this end to take action against companies engaged in the marketing and distribution sectors of the agricultural production chain that distort the agricultural market to the detriment of farm incomes and consumer prices;

Amendment 167 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 c (new)

10c. Believes that, for the sake of food security, the consolidation of local short- circuit economies, the provision of organic and sustainable production incentives and the payment of decent incomes to farmers, competition policy must go beyond considerations of price reduction; notes that closer attention to the role of intermediary companies in price inflation would be of great social benefit; notes that, in the pursuit of these objectives, professional organisations in the sector, as well as cooperative and other non-monopolistic partnership structures are playing an important role that must be encouraged; considers it important to earmark adequate funding for this purpose;

Amendment 168 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Asks the Commission to come forward with a revision of the EU Merger Regulation, so that it may be vested with the powers, much as a number of Member States are at present, to adopt measures to protect the European public order and the rights and principles of the TFEU and EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, including environmental protection;deleted

Amendment 169 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Asks the Commission to ~~come forward with a revision of the EU Merger Regulation, so that it may be vested with the powers, much as a numb~~examine the viability in the digital era of ~~Member States are at present, to adopt measures to protect the European public order and the rights and principles~~existing competition law instruments and concepts, particularly in the field of mergers, and to come forward with a revision of the TFEU ~~and EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, including environmental protec~~Merger Regulation;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F (new)

F. whereas certain governments and jurisdictions, including in the EU, have specialised or engaged in creating preferential tax regimes which distort competition to the benefit of multinational companies and high net worth individuals, who do not in fact have economic substance within these jurisdictions but are merely represented by shell companies;

Amendment 170 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

Amendment 171 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Asks the Commission to come forward with a revi~~sion~~ew of the EU Merger Regulation~~, so that it may~~ and analyse whether it should be vested with the powers, much as a number of Member States are at present, to adopt measures to protect the European public order and the rights and principles of the TFEU and EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, including environmental protection;

Amendment 172 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Asks the Commission to ~~come forward with~~examine in how far a revision of the EU Merger Regulation, so that it may be vested with the powers, much as a number of Member States are at present, to adopt measures to protect the European public order and the rights and principles of the TFEU and EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, including environmental protection might be necessary in order to allow for public interest considerations beyond the economic aspects of competition law to be taken into account;

Amendment 173 #

Paul TANG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Reiterates the Commission’s preliminary conclusion that Google has abused its market dominance as a search engine by giving an illegal advantage to its products; stresses that a full-blown structural separation between the company’s general and specialised search services is needed to end this abuse.

Amendment 174 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Underlines that TFEU Article 101 has increasingly been considered an obstacle to the collaboration of smaller market players for the adoption of higher environmental and social standards than those required by national and European authorities;

Amendment 175 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Reminds the Commission to safeguard the competitiveness of the entire EU industry, including SMEs, when looking at industrial mergers

Amendment 176 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Calls for Article 101(3) TFEU to be interpreted, including in the Commission’s horizontal guidelines, in a way that does not focus on narrow, price- centric consumer welfare but that considers the need for social and environmental efficiency, by encouraging horizontal coordination in order to improve the environmental and social sustainability of the supply chain; points out that the efficiencies generated by such agreement in a relevant market must be sufficient to outweigh the anti-competitive effects that they produce in either the same or an unrelated geographical market;deleted

Amendment 177 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

Amendment 178 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Calls for Article 101(3) TFEU to be interpreted, including in the Commission’s horizontal guidelines, in a way that does not only focus on narrow, price-centric consumer welfare but that considers the need for social and environmental efficiency, by encouraging horizontal coordination in order to improve the environmental and social sustainability of the supply chain; points out that the efficiencies generated by such agreement in a relevant market must be sufficient to outweigh the anti-competitive effects that they produce in ~~either~~ the same ~~or an unrelated~~ geographical market; also underlines that this new focus should not prevent producing lower- priced goods especially regarding sectors where consumers are more price- sensitive;

Amendment 179 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. ~~Calls for Article 101(3) TFEU to be interpreted, including in the Commission’s horizontal guidelines, in a way that does not focu~~Notes that the European Court of Justice interprets article 101 TFEU taking into account the different aims of the Treaties; points oin ~~narrow, price- centric consumer welfare but that considers the need for social and environmental efficiency, by encouraging horizontal coordination in or~~particular to the Wouters judgment (C-309/99) in which the general interest was predominant and therefore limitations of competition were considered to improve the environmental and social sustainability of the supply chain; points out that the efficiencies generated by such agreement in a relevant market must be sufficient to outweigh the anti-competitive effects that they produce in either the same or an unrelated geographical markebe justified; welcomes and encourages that EU competition practice does not solely focus on price-centric consumer welfare; stresses the importance of the proportionality principle, meaning that limitation of competition cannot go beyond what is necessary to achieve the general interest;

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s activities and efforts to ensure the effective application of competition rules in the Union; welcomes again, in this context, the Commission's proposal for a Directive to empower the national competition authorities (ECN+ Directive) and the political agreement reached by European Parliament and Council; believes that the Directive will significantly improve the effective and consistent application of EU competition law across Union by ensuring that NCAs have the tools, adequate resources and safeguards for independence to impose dissuasive fines for competition infringements; appreciates the Commission's early assistance provided to the Member States in relation to implementation of this Directive;

Amendment 180 #

Alfred SANT, Costas MAVRIDES, Tonino PICULA, Renato SORU

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Calls on the Commission to continue giving particular attention to the delivery of services of general economic interest (SGEI) including energy, transport and telecommunication, when applying EU state aid rules, especially in the context of state support dedicated to isolated, remote or peripheral regions in the Union;

Amendment 181 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Recognises that the legally binding commitments undertaken by the Member States as part of the Paris Climate Agreement will not be realised without concrete state measures to promote and finance the production and use of renewable energy; takes note of the forthcoming revision of the guidelines on state aid and energy, which will no longer exclude two of the sectors that benefit the most from state subsidies, nuclear energy and fossil fuel extraction, and which provide for greater flexibility for consumer-generated renewable energy;deleted

Amendment 182 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Recognises that the legally binding commitments undertaken by the Member States as part of the Paris Climate Agreement will not be realised without concrete state measures to promote ~~and finance~~, enable and create incentives for the production and use of renewable energy; takes note of the forthcoming revision of the guidelines on state aid and energy, which will no longer exclude two of the sectors that benefit the most from state subsidies, nuclear energy and fossil fuel extraction, and which provide for greater flexibility for consumer-generated renewable energy;

Amendment 183 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

Amendment 184 #

Paul TANG, Pervenche BERÈS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Regards as totally unjustified the unprecedented surge in energy prices in certain countries, which is placing a severe financial strain on families and increasing the number of people affected by energy poverty; notes that this is indicative of electricity pricing mechanisms that are unfavourable to consumers, giving rise to inadmissible social problems with regard to an essential public utility; notes, on the other hand, that threats inherent to climate change and unforeseen changes and fluctuations in energy demand are being brandished by supplier companies as an excuse for unjustified price increases; asks the Commission to examine electricity pricing structures as soon as possible, to protect the interests of consumers and to safeguard power supplies for the entire population; urges it also to exercise its legal prerogatives and penalise companies guilty of such practices;

Amendment 185 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Notes that the European Commission made a legislative proposal to create PEPP (Pan-European Personal Pension Product) this year, which will be a private pension fund; highlights that this legislative proposal was initially inspired by the US financial services corporate giant BlackRock, the world's largest asset fund manager that built some two-thirds of its $6 trn empire on pensions, and proposed by the European Commission after significant lobbying efforts by BlackRock; sees also growing evidence that giant asset managers like Black Rock hamper competition in real markets and amongst corporates; requests the Commission to be particularly vigilant about the risks of dominant position in the market for private pension products;

Amendment 186 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Underlines that capacity mechanisms often represent considerable costs for consumers and function as a “hidden subsidy", supporting unprofitable and polluting power stations; emphasises that any state aid approval of such schemes shall ensure that they are not open to the most polluting assets and be subject to a strict necessity test by examining alternative measures such as storage, demand-side management, smart grids, variable renewable generation and notably more efficient use of existing interconnectors;

Amendment 187 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Stresses that the Commission has an important role to play in the circular economy; Welcomes that in 2017, the Commission adopted a decision, in the first cartel case in the circular economy, imposing a total fine of EUR 68 million on four European recycling companies for having participated between 2009 and 2012 in a cartel to fix the purchase prices of scrap automotive batteries in Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands1a; __________________ 1a Case 40018 Car battery recycling, Commission decision of 8 February 2017.

Amendment 188 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Is of the view that diversified and thus competitive natural gas markets are key for contributing towards sustained economic growth at the national and the EU level; notes that the strategy of partitioning EU gas market and by extension potentially breaking of the EU antitrust rules by certain energy companies needs to be properly addressed;

Amendment 189 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Encourages the Commission to be even more vocal on competition policies in international fora; believes that competition should be part of the negotiations between the EU and third countries and that the best way to improve competition rules and practices worldwide is to engage in fair and transparent discussions;

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcom~~Notes the Commission’s activities and efforts to ensure the effective application of competition rules in the Union; considers it necessary, however, to articulate more effective policies to ensure the wellbeing of the European public that go beyond the scope of competition policy;

Amendment 190 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Underlines the need for improved transparency when private public partnerships are being envisaged to undercut the possibility that these will be used by private sector partners to secure competitive advantages over their competitors;

Amendment 191 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Underlines the importance of boosting investments in new technologies and increase the competitiveness of the European energy markets;

Amendment 192 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Welcomes the European Commission’s investigation into pricing practices for life-saving medicines, particularly on the case involving Aspen;

Amendment 193 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)

13b. Notes that competition policy can be very useful in facilitating the energy transition, not only by combating monopolistic pricing practices but also by encouraging and facilitating the incorporation of other individual and collective stakeholders in the power generation and marketing sector; in this connection, ‘prosumers’, together with local communities and municipal governments, may have a very important role to play; points out that steps must be taken to limit the actions of established companies seeking to place obstacles and difficulties in the path of new entrants and stakeholders in the power generation market;

Amendment 194 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)

13b. Stresses the importance of granting the same rights to all air carriers when flying to or from the EU; sadly acknowledges that this is not always the case for EU airlines operating outside the EU which are subject to unfair practices affecting competition; calls on the Commission to tackle anti-competitive practices undermining also the consumer protection legislation; also stresses again to ensure the fair competition between EU air carriers and third country air carriers;

Amendment 195 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)

13b. Is concerned about the approval by the European Commission of capacity mechanisms in six Member States, in the course of ongoing inter-institutional negotiations, whereby the European Parliament has a strong mandate to limit the deployment of such schemes; stresses, in this context, that future EU-wide rules shall have a strong retroactive effect and not be hampered by grandfathering clauses;

Amendment 196 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)

13b. Highlights the importance of completing the Energy Union through integration of markets, notably by investing in interconnectors where needed and based on market conditions and commercial potential, and by increasing the tradable capacity in existing interconnections, as well as measures at European level aimed at removing obstacles to free price formation;

Amendment 197 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)

13b. Welcomes that by the end of October 2017, 24 Member States had joined the Transparency Award Module, and that approximately 15000 aid grants had been published by 22 Member States; hopes that the remaining Member States will join swiftly, in order to increase transparency and scrutiny of aid awards above EUR 500 000;

Amendment 198 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)

13b. Stresses the importance of a competitive transport sector; notes that single market in transport remains to be complemented with rail sector being the most fragmented; welcomes the steps taken by the Commission in fostering completion and improved operation in internal market for the road passenger transport;

Amendment 199 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 c (new)

13c. Calls on the Commission to propose changes in the Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 to ensure the same protection for air travellers on flights from third country, regardless the fact that the carrier is EU or non-EU carrier;

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 a (new)

– having regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17.06.2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU,

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Considers that a competition policy aimed at ensuring a level playing field in all sectors is a cornerstone of the European social market economy, and a key factor in guaranteeing the proper functioning of the internal market; Welcomes the Commission’s activities and efforts to ensure the effective application of competition rules in the Union;

Amendment 200 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 c (new)

13c. Highlights the commonly agreed aims and targets of the Energy Union and points specifically to the dimension Security, solidarity and trust;

Amendment 201 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 d (new)

13d. Underlines the importance of securing that the European energy markets are built on rule of law, competition, diversity of energy sources and suppliers, predictability and transparency and to prevent any market operator, established in the union or in a third country, from levering a dominant position to the detriment for competitors and consumers; in this regard, calls for increased scrutiny of, and, where necessary, measures and imposed obligations against such market operators;

Amendment 202 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 e (new)

13e. Reaffirms that new infrastructure projects, including those connecting a Member State to a third country, shall be the subject of European legislation, notably rules on unbundling and market price formation;

Amendment 203 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. ~~Stress~~Welcomes the importance of endowing competition authorities with sufficient resources to carry out their work; supports, in this connection, the proposed competition strand of the single market programme under the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF)advances made by DG Competition in continuing the analysis of its financial circuits in 2017 in order to assess the functioning of the internal control system and further improve the efficiency of its financial operations; regrets that the analysis was not finalized in 2017; urges DG Competition to finalize its review and present its findings before the competent committees in the European Parliament;

Amendment 204 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Stresses the importance of endowing competition authorities with sufficient resources to carry out their work; underlines the need for adequate financial and human resources in the Commission Directorate-General for Competition as well as in the national competent authorities; supports, in this connection, the proposed competition strand of the single market programme under the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF);

Amendment 205 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Stresses the importance of endowing competition authorities with sufficient resources to carry out their work; supports, in this connection, the proposed competition strand of the single market programme under the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF); underlines in this context the importance of IT and of digital expertise necessary to address the challenges posed by data- driven and algorithm-based economy;

Amendment 206 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Stresses the importance of endowing competition authorities with sufficient resources to carry out their work; notes that the increased activity in terms of studies, surveillance, controls and sanctions requires appropriate resources; supports, in this connection, the proposed competition strand of the single market programme under the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF);

Amendment 207 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Stresses the importance of endowing competition authorities with sufficient human and financial resources to carry out their work; supports, in this connection, the proposed competition strand of the single market programme under the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF);

Amendment 208 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. 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); without disregarding the competences of the National Competition Authorities (NCA);

Amendment 209 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. 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 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s activities and efforts to ensure the effective application of competition rules in the Union; reminds that unfair competition is still one of the main challenges identified by European SMEs;

Amendment 210 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Stresses 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 211 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Stresses that the European Parliament should also be given co- decision powers in competition policy and regrets that this area of Union policy has not been strengthened in its democratic dimension in recent treaty amendments; Calls for the treaties to be amended accordingly;

Amendment 212 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Insist on the need of regular and permanent structural dialogues between the European Commissioner for competition with the ECON committee and in particular with the Competition working Group of this Committee;

Amendment 213 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Underlines that Commission when making competition rulings must regard the internal market as one single market, not as a number of independent local or national markets;

Amendment 214 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)

14b. Takes note of fact that the total number of merger notifications increased by 36% between 2013 and 2017, with 380 proposed mergers notified to the Commission in 2017, constituting the second highest in the history of EU merger control, and with 377 final decisions by the Commission in 2017; recognizes that this puts a strain on the resources of the DG, and that merger assessments are becoming increasingly complex and wider in reach; is concerned about the resource implications of dealing with an increasing number of merger notifications for DG Competition;

Amendment 215 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)

14b. Stresses the importance for the European Commission in its regular exchanges with national competition authorities to insist on the importance of full independence of such authorities. In particular, the appointment of its Presidents and top management should not be political appointments. Sufficient and adequate financial and human resources are a prerequisite for an effective enforcement of competition rules;

Amendment 216 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)

14b. Stresses the need to deepen the internal market, to open up for new competition and freedom of establishment in all sectors;

Amendment 217 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)

14b. Reiterates its support for international trade and investment agreements to include strong competition sections;

Amendment 218 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 c (new)

14c. Welcomes that the Commission signed a Memorandum of Understanding with China’s National Development and Reform Commission in 2017, starting a dialogue with China on State aid control, which will promote fair global competition; asks the Commission to regularly inform the Parliament about the progress of the dialogue;

Amendment 219 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 c (new)

14c. Underlines that taxation is a national competence and that the choice of policy therefore depends on the political view and orientation of the respective national governments and parliaments; stresses in this perspective the need to ensure that national tax policies does not distort fair competition;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s activities and efforts to ensure the effective application of competition rules in the Union for the benefit of all EU citizens, especially those in a weak consumer position;

Amendment 220 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 d (new)

14d. Welcomes the adoption by the Commission of the Internal Control Framework (IGF) based on international good practice, aimed to ensure the achievement of policy and operational objectives in December 2017;

Amendment 221 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the national and where applicable regional competition authorities, and the national parliaments of the Member States.

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the ~~Commission’s activities and efforts to ensure the effective application of competition rules in the Union~~2017 Report on Competition Policy (COM(2018) 482) of 18 June 2018, which can help restore a sufficient level of investment and innovation by creating a fair competitive environment;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission Report on Competition Policy 2017 and the Commission’s activities and efforts to ensure the effective application of competition rules in the Union;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Welcomes and further encourages the efforts of the Commission to maintain, in addition to the structured dialogue with the Commissioner for Competition, Margrethe Vestager, regular contact with the members of Parliament’s competent committee and its Working Group on Competition Policy; is convinced that the Commission’s Annual Report on Competition Policy is a key exercise in terms of democratic scrutiny, and welcomes the Commission’s feedback on all the specific requests adopted by Parliament;

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recalls that competition policy is in itself a means of safeguarding European democracy, in that it prevents the overconcentration of economic and financial power in the hands of a few, which would undermine the ability of Europe’s political authorities to act independently of major industrial and banking groups;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Appreciates the efforts made by the Commission and Commissioner Vestager to ensure proper information sharing and regular exchanges with the Parliament concerning competition policy; calls on the Commission to maintain a close cooperation with the members of the Parliament's competent committee;

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. 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;

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses that it is the consumer who chiefly benefits from effective competition in the European single market;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 a (new)

– having regard of the 2017 Annual Report of DG Competition, published on 28 March 2018,

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Calls on the Commission to continue monitoring the implementation of directives linked to the completion of the single market and to ensure the full enforcement of EU competition rules in order to avoid uneven application thereof in the Member States;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Stresses that Parliament should also be given co-decision powers in competition policy and regrets that this area of Union policy;

Amendment 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1c. Notes that most decisions concerning antitrust issues and State aid are taken at national level; believes therefore that the Commission should monitor and take measures to ensure consistent policy measures within the internal market

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 d (new)

1d. Welcomes the truck cartel investigation; takes positive note of the fact that the Commission did not only look at the impact of the cartel between big truck makers on prices of trucks but also sanctioned the fact that they worked together to delay the introduction of cleaner trucks;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 g (new)

1g. Stresses the reinforcement of the Single Market through a fiscal union; calls for the treaties to be amended accordingly;

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Considers that the treaty-based competition rules must be interpreted in the light of the wider European values underpinning the Union’s social market economy, notably environmental and social protection, equality considerations, consumer protection and public health, as mandated by Article 7 TFEU; takes the view, therefore, that activities which cause negative social and environmental externalities create market distortions that need to be addressed by means of competition law while, conversely, activities which bring social or environmental benefits should be explicitly taken into account when assessing treaty-based competition provisionsfully complied with;

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Considers that the treaty-based competition rules must be ~~interpreted in the light of the wider European values underpinning the Union’s social market economy, notably environmental and social protection, equality consider~~applied in consistency with the other policies and activities of the European Union, as enshrined in article 7 TFEU; notes furthermore that article 9 TFEU states that ‘in defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union shall take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of educations, ~~consumer protection and public health, as mandated by Article 7 TFEU; takes the view,~~training and protection of human health’; draws attention to article 36 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, demanding the refore, that activities which cause negative social and environmental externalities create market distortions that need to be addressed by means of competition law while, conversely, activities which bringspect for access to services of general economic interest as provided for in national laws and practices, in order to promote the social and territorial cohesion of the Union; takes the view, therefore, that social orand environmental benefits should be explicitly taken into account when ~~assessing treaty- based~~interpreting the EU competition ~~provision~~rules;

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Considers that the treaty-based competition rules must be interpreted in the light of the wider European values underpinning the Union’s social market economy, notably environmental and social protection, equality considerations, consumer protection and public health, as mandated by Article 7 TFEU; tTakes the view~~, therefore,~~ that activities which cause negative social and environmental externalities create market distortions that need to be addressed by means of competition law while, conversely, activities which bring social or environmental benefits should be explicitly taken into account when assessing treaty- based competition provisions;

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Considers that the treaty-based competition rules must be interpreted in the light of the wider European values underpinning the Union’s social market economy, ~~notably environmental and social protection, equality considerations, consumer protection and public health,~~ as mandated by Article 7 TFEU; takes the view, therefore, that activities which cause negative social and environmental externalities create market distortions that need to be addressed by means of competition law ~~while, conversely, activities which bring social or environmental benefits should be explicitly taken into account when assessing treaty-based competition provisions~~;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Considers that the treaty-based competition rules ~~must~~should be interpreted in the light of the wider European values underpinning the Union’s social market economy, notably environmental and social protection, equality considerations, consumer protection and public health, as mandated by Article 7 TFEU; takes the view, therefore, that activities which cause negative social and environmental externalities create market distortions that need to be addressed by means of competition law while, conversely, activities which bring social or environmental benefits should be explicitly taken into account when assessing treaty-basedthese values need to be taken into account in the application of EU competition ~~provisions~~law;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 b (new)

– having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20.1.2004 on the control of concentration between the undertakings,

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Considers that the treaty-based competition rules must be interpreted in the light of the wider European values underpinning the Union’s social market economy, notably environmental and social protection, equality considerations, consumer protection and public health, as mandated by Article 7 TFEU and the COP-21 Paris Agreement; takes the view, therefore, that activities which cause negative social and environmental externalities create market distortions that need to be addressed by means of competition law while, conversely, activities which bring social or environmental benefits should be explicitly taken into account when assessing treaty- based competition provisions;

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Considers that the normative foundations of EU competition law in the TFEU are still fit for purpose but its enforcement requires to carefully incorporate non-economic parameters that are essential for the realisation of Europe’s social market economy; stresses, in particular, the need to assess to what extent EU competition law is capable to address social and environmental concerns stemming from the increasing concentration of markets across sectors;

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Believes that competition policy should act as a catalyst to help promote energy transition across the EU, stimulate economic and social integration in Europe, encourage ecologically sustainable farming activities and limit the ability of large power companies to raise the price of energy supplies;

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Recalls that taxation is a national competence; notes however that the taxation instrument can be used to grant implicit State aid to companies, which can create an un-level playing field on the internal market;

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Takes the view that current and savings accounts should not incur commissions for users unless they are linked to specific services;

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Points out that even when products or services are supplied for free, consumers may still have to endure unjust behaviour, such as a degradation in quality or extortive practices; calls therefore, for the purposes of the cases under consideration, for the formulation of a 'theory of harm', which should transcend price-centric approaches and account for broader considerations such as the impact on citizens’ privacy;deleted

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Points out that even when products or services are supplied for free, consumers may still have to endure unjust behaviour, such as a degradation in quality, choice and innovation or extortive practices; calls therefore, for ~~the purposes of the cases under~~competition law enforcement to take into consideration, for ~~the formulation of a 'theory of harm', which should transcend price-centric approaches and account for broader considerations such as the impact on citizens’ privacy~~more aspects going beyond price effects, which could negatively impact on the consumer;

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Points out that even when products or services are supplied for free, most notably in the digital economy, consumers may still have to endure unjust behaviour, such as a degradation in quality or extortive practices; ~~call~~takes the~~refore, for the purposes of the cases under consideration, for the formulation of a 'theory of harm', which~~ view that EU competition rules should transcend price- centric approaches and account for broader considerations such as the ~~impa~~quality of products onr services also in view of citizens’ privacy;

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stresses that, within the internal market, new entrants and firms, including SMEs, that do not use aggressive tax practices are not equal in the competition and therefore penalised as compared with MNCs, which are able to shift profits or implement other forms of aggressive tax planning through a variety of decisions and instruments, available to them only by virtue of their size and their ability to arrange business internationally; points out that this distortion of a level playing field in favour of multinationals contradicts the fundamental principle of the single market;

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 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 Union,

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Emphasises 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; recalls that tailor-made invitations to tender are widely used to limit market competition; 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 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3c. Welcomes the enforcement of the national competition authorities as an essential tool and prerequisite in ensuring that such authorities (NCAs) become effective enforcers of EU law; underlines again that NCAs have to be sufficiently equipped in terms of financial and human resources as well as that the election or nomination of the leadership has to be fully transparent without any political influence, in order to guarantee their independence;

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 d (new)

3d. Emphasises again the crucial role of competition policy in the further development of the Digital Single Market; underlines in particular issues of unfair competition conditions imposed by certain dominant on-line platforms on suppliers;

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Underlines the urgent need for an effective framework tailored to the challenges of the data-driven~~Welcomes that in 2017, competition policy and enforcement actions continued to contribute to the implementation of the Digital Single Market Strategy; stresses that a 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; calls for greater attention to be paid to the specific market structures in the digital economy; notes in particular that digital platforms, in ~~controlling ever-increas~~processing and storing data flows, generate considerable network externalities and economies of scale, anwhich could ultimately, by ~~dint of~~ excessive concentration~~, rent extraction~~ on the relevant market and abusive market power, ~~bring about market failures;~~ distort competition;

Amendment 54 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Underlines~~Points out the enormous changes in markets resulting from continuing technological development, which brings both opportunities and challenges to competition; underlines, in particular, the urgent need for an effective framework tailored to the challenges of the data-driven and algorithm economy; notes in particular that digital platforms, in accessing and controlling ever-increasing data flows, generate considerable network externalities and economies of scale, and ultimately, ~~by dint of~~through excessive market concentration, acquiring a gatekeeper function, rent extraction and abusive market power, can bring about market failures;

Amendment 55 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Underlines the urgent need for an effective framework tailored to the challenges of the data-driven economy; notes in particular that digital platforms, in controlling ever-increasing data flows,; users are not aware to the extent their data is being used and passed on to third parties for marketing or commercial purposes and certainly didn't give explicit consent for such utilisation1a; generate considerable network externalities and economies of scale, and ultimately, by dint of excessive concentration, rent extraction and abusive market power, bring about market failures; __________________ 1a https://ig.ft.com/mobile-app-data- trackers/

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Underlines the urgent need for an effective framework tailored to the challenges of the data-driven economy; notes in particular that digital platforms, in controlling ever-increasing data flows, generate considerable network externalities and economies of scale, and ultimately, by dint of excessive concentration, rent extraction and abusive market power, bring about market failures; calls on the Commission to undertake a thorough review of existing competition law instruments and strategies in order to determine whether they meet the needs of the digital age;

Amendment 57 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Underlines the ~~urgent need for an effective framework tailored to the challenges of~~advantages of data innovation and the data-driven economy; notes ~~in particular~~at the same time that digital platforms, in controlling ever-increasing data flows, generate considerable network externalities and economies of scale~~, and ultimately, by dint of excessive concentration, rent extraction and abusive market power, bring about market failures~~; underlines therefore the need to open up for new business models and competition which can enable new and smaller actors as well as broader services provided by big actors; stresses that this could offer new services to consumers and thereby also requires rules for fair competition;

Amendment 58 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. URecalls that the data economy is an important part of the digital economy; underlines the urgent need for an effective framework tailored to the challenges of the data-driven economy; notes in particular that digital platforms, in controlling ever- increasing data flows, generate considerable network externalities and economies of scale, and ultimately, by dint of excessive concentration, rent extraction and abusive market power, ~~bring about market failures~~pose a serious threat to the market principles we abide for;

Amendment 59 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. UCalls on the Commission to take ambitious steps to eliminate illegitimate obstacles to online competition; underlines the urgent need for an effective framework tailored to the challenges of the data-driven economy; notes in particular that digital platforms, in controlling ever-increasing data flows, generate considerable network externalities and economies of scale, and ultimately, by dint of excessive concentration, rent extraction and abusive market power, bring about market failures;

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 10 a (new)

– having regard to the study ‘Competition issues in the Area of Financial Technology (Fin Tech)’1a, commissioned by the Competition Working Group of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, __________________ 1a http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/e tudes/STUD/2018/619027/IPOL_STU(201 8)619027_EN.pdf

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. UTakes positive note of the potential of innovation in the data-driven economy; underlines however the urgent need for an effective framework tailored to the challenges of the data-driven economy; notes in particular that digital platforms, in controlling ever-increasing data flows, generate considerable network externalities and economies of scale, and ultimately, by dint of excessive concentration, rent extraction and abusive market power, bring about market failures;

Amendment 61 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Underlines the ~~urgent~~ need for an effective framework tailored to the challenges of the data-driven economy; notes in particular that ~~digital platforms, in controlling ever-increasing data flows, generate considerable network externalities and economies of scale, and ultimately, by dint of~~certain types of digital platforms with an ability of controlling ever-increasing data flows can generate economies of scale which may result in excessive concentration, leading to rent extraction and abusive market power~~, bring about market failures~~;

Amendment 62 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Recalls that the EU has established comprehensive rules to protect the privacy and data protection of individuals in the EU; Individuals whose personal data are processed benefit from the rights provided under the General Data Protection Regulation GDPR1a including a right to object to processing and to withdraw consent. The GDPR requires amongst others that processing be lawful, fair and transparent, and that personal data be collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes. In addition, Directive 2002/58/EC (the ePrivacy Directive)1b complements and particularises the GDPR as regards the processing of personal data in the electronic communications sector. Notably, Article 5(3) provides that the storing of information or the gaining of access to the information already stored in the terminal equipment is only allowed when the subscriber or user concerned has given his or her consent; such storage or access is necessary to transmit the communication; or it is necessary to provide an information society service explicitly requested by a subscriber or user; __________________ 1a https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:3201 6R0679&from=EN 1b https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:3200 2L0058&from=EN

Amendment 63 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Welcomes the Commission’s initiative to provide a channel for complaints regarding agreements between businesses designed to control prices, prevent access for new competitors or facilitate other illegal practices detrimental to consumers’ interests; welcomes the satisfactory functioning of the new complaints channel initiated in 2017; believes, moreover, that it is extremely useful for the Commission to be able to report in Parliament on the results of the ‘Leniency Programme’;

Amendment 64 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Welcomes in this context the appointment of special advisers to the Commissioner focusing on future challenges of digitalisation for competition policy and awaits with interest their findings and recommendations for action; calls on the Commission to follow closely the discussions and recommendations of expert groups established at national level as regards possible revisions of EU competition policy in light of the digital economy; underlines that ultimately a common EU-wide approach on these questions will be necessary;

Amendment 65 #

Gunnar HÖKMARK, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Points out that the personal data some online platforms have access to can increase the risk of abuse of a dominant position; calls on the Commission to take this imbalance and access to personal data into account when interpreting the possible abuse of dominant position of online platforms;

Amendment 66 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Notes that there is no trade-off between competition and innovation, nor between competition and investments and that effective competition is the best way to foster investments while ensuring innovation and high quality services for end-users at affordable prices;

Amendment 67 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Welcomes that as a follow-up to the e-commerce sector inquiry finalised in 2017, DG Competition will continue in 2018 to investigate anticompetitive agreements and practices in the e- commerce sector that are detrimental to a Digital Single Market;

Amendment 68 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Welcomes the Commission’s diligence in addressing market failures from a competition standpoint, by fining the companies in breach of the European legal framework;

Amendment 69 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Calls the European Commission to organise a hearing with tech companies inviting the CEOs of Google, Facebook and Apple in order to discuss in particular how consumers’ personal data is harvested and used by third countries. In fact, users, regulators and sometimes even the app developers and advertisers are unaware of the extent to which data flow from smartphones to digital advertising groups and other third parties. Data collected by third parties through smartphone apps can include anything from profile information such as age and gender to location details, including data about nearby cell phone towers or Wi-Fi routers, and information about every other app on a phone. The EU should empower individuals to understand the monopoly and concentration issues surrounding these tracking companies;

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 10 a (new)

– having regard of Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1084 of 14 June 2017 amending Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 as regards aid for port and airport infrastructure,

Amendment 70 #

Gunnar HÖKMARK, Nils TORVALDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Welcomes that in 2017 the Commission continued its work on one of the key actions of the second pillar of the Digital Single Market strategy, i.e. the review of the telecoms regulatory framework, which has been designed to take into account changes in markets, consumer trends and technology, including measures to stimulate investment in and take-up of very high capacity networks in the European Union, new spectrum rules for mobile connectivity and 5G, as well as changes to governance, the universal service regime, end-user protection rules, and numbering and emergency communication rules;

Amendment 71 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. 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 72 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Reiterates that competition in the telecommunication sector is essential to driving innovation and investment in networks and encourages affordable prices and choice of services for consumers;

Amendment 73 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4c. Considers that the steps towards ending consumer charges for roaming in the EU is, in the long term perspective, not sufficient if the single market is to be further deepened, and that incentives for intra-EU calls to be on the same level as local calls must be created by facilitating investments in fully European or shared network;

Amendment 74 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4c. Believes that intra-EU calls still represent a great burden for the businesses and customers and encourages to remove such burdens of the Single Market;

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 d (new)

4d. Calls on Commission to consult network operators and relevant stakeholders on how to bring down charges for intra-EU calls to the level of local calls in the most efficient way;

Amendment 76 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 e (new)

4e. Underlines at the same time that Commission must encourages investments and secure global competitiveness and innovation;

Amendment 77 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 f (new)

4f. Is of the view that the policies should favour efficient investments in new networks and take into account the impact on consumers and by that also prevent new digital divides between high and low income households;

Amendment 78 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 g (new)

4g. Agrees with Commission that very high capacity networks, 5G Internet connections and coverage are preconditions for digital development and innovation;

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 h (new)

4h. Calls on Commission to encourage broadband rollout by promoting a high level of competition and to ensure a high level of connectivity in the EU and a rapid deployment of 5G across the Union in order to secure the Union's global competitiveness and attract investments;

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 10 a (new)

– having regard to the Commission's answers given to the E-000344/2016, E- 002666/2016 and E-002112/2016 written questions,

Amendment 80 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission, in this regard, to adjudge the control of data necessary for the creation and provision of services as a proxy for the existence of market power, including when issuing its guidance on Article 102 TFEU, and to require interoperability between online platforms and social network providers; requests that the Commission provide a dedicated chapter on these issues in its next annual report on competition policy~~, including case studies on price caps in sectors such as online platforms for accommodation and tourism~~;

Amendment 81 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission, in this regard, to adjudge the control of data necessary for the creation and provision of services as a proxy for the existence of market power, including when issuing its guidance on Article 102 TFEU, and to require interoperability between online platforms and social network providers; requests that the Commission ~~provide a dedicated chapter on~~take these issues into account in its next annual report on competition policy~~, including case studies on price caps in sectors such as online platforms for accommodation and tourism~~;

Amendment 82 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission, in this regard, to adjudge the control of data necessary for the creation and provision of services as a proxy for the existence of market power, including when issuing its guidance on Article 102 TFEU, and to require interoperability between online platforms and social network providers; requests that the Commission provide a dedicated chapter on these issues in its next annual report on competition policy, ~~including case studies on~~and monitor price caps in sectors such as online platforms for accommodation and tourism;

Amendment 83 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. In line with EU comprehensive rules to protect the privacy and data protection GDPR of individuals in the EU; Requests big technological companies such as Google, Facebook and Apple to process and collect personal data for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes. This processing shall be lawful, fair and transparent. Calls on the EU, in line with Article 5(3) of the Directive 2002/58/EC (the ePrivacy Directive) to force digital companies to exploit personal data only after the subscriber or user concerned has given his explicit consent. Without this consent, data cannot been transferred to third parties with which the company or platform has an agreement with;

Amendment 84 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Welcomes the adoption in 2017 of the Commission's final report of the e- commerce sector inquiry, which gathered market information in order to better understand the nature, prevalence and effects of barriers to online trade erected by companies, and to assess them in light of EU Competition rules; underlines that the report confirms that the growth of e- commerce over the last decade and, in particular, increased online price transparency and price competition, had a significant impact on companies’ distribution strategies and consumer behaviour;

Amendment 85 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Welcomes the action taken by the Commission to monitor the use of fiscal policy to gain an unfair competitive advantage within the EU; notes that, in this connection, the fine imposed on Apple may serve as an example; calls on EU Member States to abandon unfair competition practices based on unjustified tax incentives;

Amendment 86 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Points in this context to the evolution of self-learning algorithms and artificial intelligence, in particular when provided to companies by third parties, and its impact on the nature of cartel activity; calls on the Commission to examine in how far the current competition law tools are adequate to detect and deal with more effective cartel behaviour through algorithms and artificial intelligence;

Amendment 87 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Considers it essential to adopt more detailed and precise provisions regarding the economic significance of data from users in the digital economy; notes that, as recognised by the industry itself, data are the raw material of the new economy; believes that dataflow should be considered a relevant factor in assessing the potentially monopolistic practices of an undertaking or association of undertakings;

Amendment 88 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5c. Calls on the Commission to provide, in the shortest possible time, information regarding ongoing investigations into whether certain online sales practices are depriving consumers of freedom of choice across borders and preventing them from purchasing consumer electronics, video games and hotel stays at competitive prices;

Amendment 89 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 d (new)

5d. Considers it important to ensure the proper functioning of Union collective redress mechanisms designed to secure adequate compensation for consumers affected by anti-competitive practices;

Amendment 9 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 10 a (new)

– having regard to the relevant report of the Economic and Social Committee,

Amendment 90 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 e (new)

5e. Calls on the Commission to use its powers to limit the impact of the asymmetric distribution of the tax burden between the traditional economy on the one hand and new digitally-based economic practices on the other; notes that this glaring inequality is severely disrupting the normal functioning of the economic system and will do so even more in future, while at the same time making it considerably harder for Member States to raise funds;

Amendment 91 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 f (new)

5f. Considers it necessary to guarantee the right to cross-border portability to prevent existing limitations to this right becoming entrenched as legitimate market practices; considers it important also to remove abusive and unjustified restrictions imposed on geographical grounds that provide inconsistent levels of supposed protection for intellectual property rights;

Amendment 92 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 g (new)

5g. Believes it important for competition policy to take into account the specificities of broadband deployment in rural areas in order to serve the greater good and reverse the trend towards increasing technological disparities between rural and urban areas regarding access;

Amendment 93 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that the jurisdictional thresholds setting the starting point for an EU merger review, which are based on the turnovers of the target and acquiring entities, are not appropriate for the digital economy, in which value is often, for advertising purposes, represented by the number of visitors to a website; suggests that these thresholds be revised and adapted to the number of consumers impacted by mergers and the value of the related transactionsTakes note that the EU rules do not establish large 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 not made within due time;

Amendment 94 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that the jurisdictional thresholds setting the starting point for an EU merger review, which are based on the turnovers of the target and acquiring entities, are not appropriate for the digital economy, in which value is often, for advertising purposes, represented by the number of visitors to a website; suggests that these thresholds be revised and adapted to the number of consumers impacted by mergers, the possibility of competitors to enter and/or compete in a given market, and the value of the related transactions;

Amendment 95 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that the jurisdictional thresholds setting the starting point for an EU merger review, which are based on the turnovers of the target and acquiring entities, ~~are~~may not always be appropriate for the digital economy, in which value is often, for advertising purposes, represented by the number of visitors to a website; suggests that these thresholds be revised and adapted to the number of consumers impacted by mergers and the value of the related transactions;

Amendment 96 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

Amendment 97 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Calls on the Commission to adopt guidelines to optimize the duration of antitrust investigations, in order to avoid uncertainty or excessive burden for businesses and shape a competitive landscape which is not detrimental for consumers;

Amendment 98 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Underlines the fact that barriers to entry in the digital economy are becoming increasingly insurmountable, as the more that unjust behaviour is perpetuated, the harder it gets to revert to anti-competitive effects; notes that the digital economy is, inter alia, governed by zero-sum rules with the winner taking all, which means that any attempt to perpetuate, condone or trivialise the impact of monopolistic practices or cartels will irrevocably affect the entire economic system; affirms, in this regard, that the Commission should therefore make effective use of interim measures, while ensuring due process and the right of defence of undertakings under investigation;

Amendment 99 #