13 Amendments of Kaja KALLAS related to 2016/2244(INI)
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas existing legislation covering franchising as a business model varies widely between Member States, and franchisees may refrain from entering into cross-border franchise networks, because they are not familiar with other legal systems and may not be protected against unfair trading practicethe implementation of existing EU-level regulations, and the way in which national laws are applied to franchising as a business model varies widely between Member States, and the consequent lack of homogenous rules creates technical barriers which may discourage both franchisors and franchisees from expanding their activities across borders;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
D b. whereas franchising has been a successful business formula allowing for the rapid acquisition of new markets with limited investment and an increased chance of success for both franchisees and franchisors;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas, in the context of the realisation of the digital single market, specific attention should be paid to the texpansions which have arisen between franchisors and franchisees with respect to of franchises into the domain of e-commerce, and the sharing of consumer data, since currentlyincreasing relevance of consumer data for the success of franchising business models, particularly as franchise agreements do not currently contain provisions on these subjects and thus lead to, leaving scope for unnecessary uncertainty and conflicts;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that franchising can play an important role for the completion of the single market in the retail sector, franchising can play an important role, provided that effective protection of both franchisors and franchisees against unfair trading practices is offered throughout the EU, provided that homogenous standards are put in place, clarifying the rights and obligations of each party to a franchise contract, and removing technical barriers to cross- border trade;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Recalls that franchising is a contractual relationship between two legally independent businesses;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Underlines that parties to a franchising contract are vulnerable towards each other, with the franchisor facing the risk of losing the secrecy of its formula and the franchisee that of giving up part of its independence as regards its business decisions;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that franchisees are often the weaker contracting party, as the franchise formula has normally been developed by the franchisor and franchisees tend to be financially weaker and less well-informed than the franchisor and therefore heavily dependent on the expertise of the franchisor;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. States that franchisors have organised themselves both at national and European level for the representation of their interests, whereas often due to a lack of resources, franchisees often lack such representative organisations and are under- represented;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Emphasises that there is a persistent lack of information on the functioning of franchising in the retail sectorEU and calls on the Commission to open aimprove the collection of information such as by opening confidential contact points for information on problems encountered by franchisees, whilst guaranteeing the confidentiality of the information thus acquiredors and franchisees or by launching public consultations;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Takes note ofWelcomes, in principle, the European Code of Ethics for Franchising, developed by the European Franchise Federation, but also notes that the Code has been unilaterally drawn up by franchisors and as a potentially efficient tool for promoting best practices in the franchise sector on a self-regulatory basis; notes, further, that the Code primarily represents the interests of franchisors, but also notes that the Code has met with fundamental criticism from franchisees pointing, inter alia, to the fact that the code preceding the 2016 revision of the Code was worded more strongly in respect of the commitments of the franchisor prior to its revision in 2016;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Regrets, however, that the Code only covers a small minority of franchises operating in the EU, as the majority of franchises belong neither to the EFF nor the national associations that have adopted it, and several Member States do not have national franchise associations;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the Commission to examine complaints it receives through a contact point or otherwise and to draw up a non-exhaustive listproposals for further action to improve the functioning of the franchise sector and prevent the occurrence of unfair trading practices based on this information;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Notes with concern the disputes arising about interonlinet sales, as they are vital in the digital market, whereasse constitute an increasingly important part of the franchise business model, but are not covered in traditional franchise agreements, which do not take into account the effect internet sales may have on exclusivity clauses, thus making it possible that in the area for which the franchisee has the right of exclusivity, customers may buy their products from the franchisor, even if they pick up the goodthe provisions set out in them; calls, therefore, for the inclusion of provisions relating to online sales in the franchisee’s shop agreements;