16 Amendments of Luděk NIEDERMAYER related to 2020/0361(COD)
Amendment 140 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Therefore, in order to safeguard and improve the functioning of the internal market, a targeted set of uniform, effective and proportionate mandatory rules should be established at Union level. This Regulation provides the conditions for innovative digital services to emerge and to scale up in the internal market. The approximation of national regulatory measures at Union level concerning the requirements for providers of intermediary services is necessary in order to avoid and put an end to fragmentation of the internal market and to ensure legal certainty, thus reducing uncertainty for developers and fostering interoperability. By using requirements that are technology neutral, innovation and the competitiveness of European companies should not be hampered but instead be stimulated.
Amendment 216 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 43
Recital 43
(43) To avoid disproportionate burdens, the additional obligations imposed on online platforms under this Regulation should not apply to micro or small enterprises as defined in Recommendation 2003/361/EC of the Commission,41 unless their reach and impact is such that they meet the criteria to qualify as very large online platforms under this Regulation. The consolidation rules laid down in that Recommendation help ensure that any circumvention of those additional obligations is prevented. The exemption of micro- and small enterprises from those additional obligations should not be understood as affecting their ability to set up, on a voluntary basis, a system that complies with one or more of those obligations. In this regard, the Commission and Digital Service Coordinators may work together on information and guidelines for the voluntary implementation of the provisions in this Regulation for micro or small enterprises. Furthermore, the Commission and Digital Services Coordinators are also encouraged to do so for medium enterprises, which while not benefitting from the liability exemptions in Section 3, may sometimes lack the legal resources necessary to ensure proper understanding and compliance with all provisions. _________________ 41 Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium- sized enterprises (OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, p. 36).
Amendment 240 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 54
Recital 54
(54) Very large online platforms may cause societal risks, different in scope and impact from those caused by smaller platforms. Once the number of recipients of a platform reaches a significant share of the Union population, the systemic risks the platform poses have a disproportionately negative impact in the Union. Such significant reach should be considered to exist where the number of recipients exceeds an operational threshold set at 45 million, that is, a number equivalent to 10% of the Union population. The operational threshold should be kept up to date through amendments enacted by delegatedislative acts, where necessary. Such very large online platforms should therefore bear the highest standard of due diligence obligations, proportionate to their societal impact and means. Provisions should also exist for Member States to request for the Commission to assess if an online platform that does not meet the threshold of 45 million active monthly users may still cause significant and systemic societal risks. While an online platform may not meet the quantitative criteria to be designated as a very large online platform, it may meet qualitative criteria. In such cases, the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment may require the online platform to fulfil part of the obligations set out in Section 4 for a limited number of time until the risk has abated.
Amendment 258 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 61
Recital 61
(61) The audit report should be substantiated, so as to give a meaningful account of the activities undertaken and the conclusions reached. It should help inform, and where appropriate suggest improvements to the measures taken by the very large online platform to comply with their obligations under this Regulation, without prejudice to its freedom to conduct a business and, in particular, its ability to design and implement effective measures that are aligned with its specific business model. The report should be transmitted to the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment and the Board without delay, together with the risk assessment and the mitigation measures, as well as the platform’s plans for addressing the audit’s recommendations. The report should include an audit opinion based on the conclusions drawn from the audit evidence obtained. A positive opinion should be given where all evidence shows that the very large online platform complies with the obligations laid down by this Regulation or, where applicable, any commitments it has undertaken pursuant to a code of conduct or crisis protocol, in particular by identifying, evaluating and mitigating the systemic risks posed by its system and services. A positive opinion should be accompanied by comments where the auditor wishes to include remarks that do not have a substantial effect on the outcome of the audit. A negative opinion should be given where the auditor considers that the very large online platform systematically does not comply with this Regulation or the commitments undertaken. A disclaimer of an opinion should be given where the auditor does not have enough information to conclude on an opinion due to the novelty of the issues audited.
Amendment 301 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 100
Recital 100
(100) Compliance with the relevant obligations imposed under this Regulation should be enforceable by means of fines and periodic penalty payments. To that end, appropriate levels of fines and periodic penalty payments should also be laid down for systemic non-compliance with the relevant obligations and breach of the procedural rules, subject to appropriate limitation periods. A systematic infringement is a pattern of online harm that, when the individual harms are added up, constitutes an aggregation of systemic harm to active recipients of the service across three or more EU Member States.
Amendment 356 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
In extraordinary cases, where the intermediary service has reasonable doubt that the removal order is not legally sound, the intermediary service should have access to a mechanism to challenge the decision. This mechanism shall be established by the Digital Services Coordinators in coordination with the Board and the Commission.
Amendment 415 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 16 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
The Commission and Digital Service Coordinators may work together on information and guidelines for the voluntary implementation of the provisions in this Regulation for micro or small enterprises within the meaning of the Annex to Recommendation 2003/361/EC.
Amendment 416 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Online platforms shall provide to all recipients of the service, for a period of at least six months following the decision referred to in this paragraph, the access to an effective internal complaint-handling system, which enables the complaints to be lodged electronically and free of charge,. Complaints can be filed against the following decisions taken by the online platform on the ground that the information provided by the recipients is illegal content or incompatible with its terms and conditions:
Amendment 421 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Complaints can also be lodged against decisions made by the online platform to not remove, not disable, not suspend and not terminate access to accounts.
Amendment 439 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 19 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) it represents collective interests and is independent from any online platform except in the cases of businesses with a vested interest in flagging counterfeit products of their brand thus ensuring the online consumer experience is safer and more reliable;
Amendment 447 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 6
Article 19 – paragraph 6
6. The Digital Services Coordinatorauthority that awarded the status of trusted flagger to an entity shall revoke that status if it determines, following an investigation either on its own initiative or on the basis information received by third parties, including the information provided by an online platform pursuant to paragraph 5, that the entity no longer meets the conditions set out in paragraph 2. Before revoking that status, the Digital Services Coordinator shall afford the entity an opportunity to react to the findings of its investigation and its intention to revoke the entity’s status as trusted flagger
Amendment 468 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Online platforms that facilitate the sale of harmonised consumer goods between a seller in a third country and a consumer in the EU and where there is no other manufacturer or importer in the EU, should verify that the product bears the required conformity mark (CE mark) and that it has other relevant documents (e.g. EU declaration of conformity). Traders from within the Union and from third countries should also have the option to voluntarily upload the relevant documents certifying that their goods meet the consumer protection standards of the EU. If the traders choose to do so, online platforms may then show proof of these documents to users as part of the user interface to instil more consumer confidence in the distance contracts conducted on their platforms.
Amendment 491 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 25 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Member States may request for the Commission to assess if an online platform that does not meet the threshold of 45 million active monthly users set out in Paragraph 1 may still cause significant and systemic societal risks. While an online platform may not meet the quantitative criteria to be categorised as a Very Large Online Platform, it may meet at least two of the following qualitative criteria: (a) it has a significant impact on the internal market; (b) it operates a core platform service which serves as an important gateway for business users to reach end users; (c) it enjoys an entrenched and durable position in its operations or it is foreseeable that it will enjoy such a position in the near future; (d) it repeatedly and systemically fails to take down illegal content, as evidenced in its transparency reporting as per Articles 13 and 24. If the Commission finds that the online platform does pose significant and systemic societal risks based on the above criteria, the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment may require the online platform to fulfil part of the obligations set out in Section 4 for a limited number of times until the risk has abated.
Amendment 515 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 27 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new)
(c) measures taken by the Digital Service Coordinators, the Board and the Commission to ensure that highly sensitive information and business secrets are kept confidential.
Amendment 520 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 28 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Digital Services Coordinators shall provide very large online platforms under their jurisdiction with an annual audit plan outlining the key areas of focus for the upcoming audit cycle.
Amendment 560 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 39 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Member States shall designate the status of Digital Services Coordinator based on the following criteria: (a) the authority has particular expertise and competence for the purposes of detecting, identifying and notifying illegal content; (b) it represents collective interests and is independent from any online platform; (c) it has the capacity to carry out its activities in a timely, diligent and objective manner.