Activities of Ildikó GÁLL-PELCZ related to 2016/2244(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the functioning of franchising in the retail sector
Amendments (14)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the lack of homogeneity in its application across the Member States undermined the effectivenessRegrets that, to date, there has been scarcely any information about the application of Commission Regulation No 330/2010 in the area of franchising;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that the regulation’s clauses on vertical restraints do not allow balanced representation of the two parties to the franchising and are notCommission should check whether the effectiveness of that regulation is not being undermined as a result of inconsistent application in the Member States and whether it is in line with recent market developments, in particular the exempted post-contractual clauses and purchasing conditions;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that the implementation of the regulation through a mechanism of assessment at European levelwithin the European network of competition authorities should be improved, and stresses that the unsatisfactory follow-up actionwithin that network by the Commission prevents cross-border retail activity and fails to create a level playing field within the single market;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Points out that the Commission should start public consultations with a view to correctingasses and inform the Parliament on the suitability of the model on which the future block exemption regulation is based and to establishing the concept of a franchising contract to be used in any future EU legislation, as well as for possible action in the area of private law;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to also ensure the recovery of any illegal state aid by means of tax advantages in the area of franchises and to show firmness in the conduct and result of ongoing inquiries, such as the McDonald’s case; stresses, moreover, that the EU needs to have more stringent legislation on tax rulings, providing also for an effective system and a debt recovery procedure in favour of EU budget own resources; calls on the Commission to rectify any infringement in the area of franchising with the view to ensuring fair competition across the single market;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Considers that the self-regulatory environment in the EU results in an inability to influence nearly 80 % of franchise chains in the EU, as they are noteffectiveness of the EU supply chain initiative needs to be assessed as membership of the national franchise associations is a pre-requisite for the participation in this initiative;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Commission to check whether it is necessary to revisew the regulation before 2018 and to (1)and, in that connection, to verify (1) the impact of the horizontal approach on the functioning of franchising; (2) test whether the model of franchising adopted in the regulation reflects the market reality, and correct it if necessary; (3) assess the negative effects and proportionality of the permitted vertical restraints, taking into account also their impact on the functioning of franchising by establishing market standards, for example a revision of the definition of know-how and a reconsideration of the context of territorial exclusivity clauses and permitted options; (4) collect market information in terms of new trends, market development regarding network organisation and technological advances; (5) considering that the subject is not covered at the national level, further assess the; (3) to what extent permitted vertical restraints are proportionate and have negative effects; (4) and what new challenges franchisors and franchisees have to face in the context of e- commerce; (6) adapt the regulation in order to achieve a general improvement and align it with digitalisation of the economy and digitisation in general;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. CallsAcknowledges that, on a national level, legislation has been enacted to protect franchisees, but the focus is on the pre-contractual stage, to impose disclosure obligations on the franchisor; calls therefore on the Commission to revise the rules on the enforcement of the regulation by Member States, while its application should be proportionally adjusted to fulfil its aim;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12 a. Regrets that it does not help to correct this situation that national systems have not provided for enforcement mechanisms which are efficient in assuring continuation of the franchise relationship;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the Commission to ensure equalwork towards an appropriate and independent representation of the interested parties to franchising contracts in the European supply chain initiative, and to take action to strengthen the self-organisation of franchisees at the EU and national level, in order to grantallow franchisees equal access toto better participate in the public debate on franchising and establish a level playing field;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13 a. Stresses that regulation should maintain and increase market confidence in franchising as a way of doing business as it encourages entrepreneurism not only in SMEs that become franchisors, but also in individuals who become franchisees;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls on the Commission to correct market failures through legislative action, either by tackling unfair trading practices orPoints out that the existing fragmented and low level of cooperation within different national enforcement bodies is not sufficient to address cross- border challenges regarding unfair trading practices; calls on the Commission to correct market failures through action by better regulating retail law, contract law or/and competition law;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Stresses that UTPs in franchising can only be determined after specific analysis has been carried out in which also the view of franchisees has been taken into account, believes that the next step should be to organise a multi- stakeholder debate to discuss unfair practices in franchise supply chains and possible solutions and this can be reached by organizing an Expert Platform, as has been the case with food supply chains, or by opening a public consultation;