Activities of Marie-Christine BOUTONNET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Takes the view that, in the light of the dynamic technological changes in the sector, there is a need to clarify who should bear the damage in the event of accidents caused by fully autonomous vehicles; calls therefore on the Commission to adapt the current EU legal framework and~~, if necessary,~~ introduce new rules on the basis of which responsibility and liability are allocated to the designers, manufacturers, owners or users of autonomous vehicles;

2018/09/06
Committee: JURI

2018/2089(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Underlines that a possible ~~solution to address the existing gaps and shortcoming~~way to compensate victims could be the setting up of a ~~no-fault~~mandatory insurance framework for damage resulting from autonomous vehicles;

2018/09/06
Committee: JURI

2018/2089(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

~~4. Considers that an EU-level approach could facilitate the cross-border development of autonomous transport systems by avoiding fragmentation in the internal market;~~deleted

2018/09/06
Committee: JURI

2018/2089(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Takes the view that the idea of giving autonomous vehicles their own legal personality should be abandoned;

2018/09/06
Committee: JURI

2018/2089(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Welcom~~Notes with interest the Commission proposals to regulate the protection of vehicles against cyber-attacks and to equip autonomous cars with data recorders to help determine the cause of accidents; calls on the Commission to further clarify rules on the protection and sharing of the data collected by those vehicles and access to such data, while fully respecting the GDPR rules and enabling interoperability between systems;

2018/09/06
Committee: JURI

2018/2079(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Recital L

L. whereas ~~courts and~~ chambers specialised in commercial matters at national level will guarantee a higher level of competence in such matters and thereby attract such cases to the courts of the Member States;

2018/10/19
Committee: JURI

2018/2079(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Observes that such a procedure could build on requirements for thorough preparations by the parties before the procedure is launched, and strict deadlines, ~~few possibilities to add facts or eviden~~thus achieving a fast-track proce dur~~ing the process and no separate appeal~~e; notes that it could be useful for such a procedure to be proeced~~ural decisions, thus achieving a fast-track~~ed by an attempt at conciliation in order to avoid a lengthy and costly adversarial procedure;

2018/10/19
Committee: JURI

2018/2079(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Observes that the aim to provide expedited settlement of commercial disputes in the Union cannot just be achieved by the introduction of a fast-track procedural system; to this aim, ~~court~~specialised chambers, judges and lawyers highly proficient in commercial law and private international law would be needed in order to make such a procedural system efficient and high quality;

2018/10/19
Committee: JURI

2018/2079(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Contends that in this respect there might be a need to review the Rome I Regulation in order to strengthen the connection between the aim and object of contracts and the law chosen, while at the same time allowing, where appropriate, for more party autonomy in relation to the choice of law, in order to ensure and enhance legal certainty, the Commission’s proposal should be based on the Rome I Regulation so as to enable the parties to determine the law applicable to the dispute in a simple and transparent manner;

2018/10/19
Committee: JURI

2018/2079(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Emphasises that legislative measures cannot address these issues alone, practical measures to raise the competence both of ~~court~~specialised chambers and of lawyers are also necessary;

2018/10/19
Committee: JURI

2018/2079(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Pursuant to Article 225 TFEU, requests therefore the Commission to submit by 1 January 2020, on the basis of Article 81(2) TFEU, a proposal for a legislative act on a European Expedited Civil Procedure ~~and a proposal for amendments to~~in accordance with the Rome I Regulation according to recommendations set out in the Annex hereto;

2018/10/19
Committee: JURI

2018/2079(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Considers that any financial implications of the proposal, costs for procedures brought under the EECP, would be offset by equivalent savings as the EEPC is likely to be substantially more cost-effective than the ordinary procedures of the Member States, with the recommendation to attempt prior conciliation, and as the disputes in question would not be brought under the general procedural system of the Member State in question;

2018/10/19
Committee: JURI

2018/2079(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part I – paragraph 2 – point 7

7. Encourage a prior attempt at in- and out-of-court amicable settlement of disputes, including by way of mediation or conciliation;

2018/10/19
Committee: JURI

2018/2079(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part II

II. Possible changes to Rome I Regulation The proposal on European Expedited Civil Procedure could be supported by a proposal to amend the Rome I Regulation to achieve a stronger connection between the purpose and aim of agreements and the law chosen within the Union but also to afford the parties to purely commercial contracts further autonomy. Amendments to the Rome I Regulation could include: 1. The possibility for parties to apply not only existing law of a Member State, but international conventions, model laws and principles or similar adopted by an intergovernmental organisation; 2. Consideration of reinforcement of the connection between the law chosen and the content, aim and purpose of the contract and of the parties; 3. Reconsideration of the rules applicable to the validity of a choice of law, this ought to be considered under the default law applicable to the contract.deleted

2018/10/19
Committee: JURI

2018/2079(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part II – paragraph 1

The proposal on European Expedited Civil Procedure could be supported by a proposal to amend the Rome I Regulation to achieve a stronger connection between the purpose and aim of agreements and the law chosen within the Union but also to afford the parties to purely commercial contracts further autonomy.deleted

2018/10/19
Committee: JURI

2018/2079(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part II – paragraph 2

Amendments to the Rome I Regulation could include: 1. The possibility for parties to apply not only existing law of a Member State, but international conventions, model laws and principles or similar adopted by an intergovernmental organisation; 2. Consideration of reinforcement of the connection between the law chosen and the content, aim and purpose of the contract and of the parties; 3. Reconsideration of the rules applicable to the validity of a choice of law, this ought to be considered under the default law applicable to the contract.deleted

2018/10/19
Committee: JURI

2018/2079(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part III – point 3

3. In addition, the Commission is invited to further study the possibility to establish a European Commercial Court to supplement the courts of the Member States and offer litigants an additional, international forum specialised in settlement of commercial disputes.deleted

2018/10/19
Committee: JURI

2018/2079(INL)

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part III – point 4

4. As a final measure, Member States are invited to consider reviewing their laws applicable to commercial matters, as one of the more important factors for choice of law is how well the commercial law of a country has adapted to practices and developments in commercial areas.deleted

2018/10/19
Committee: JURI

2018/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Takes note of the 2017 EU Justice Scoreboard ~~with great interest~~ and calls on the Commission to further promote this exercise in accordance with the Treaties and in consultation with the Member States;

2018/03/08
Committee: JURI

2018/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. S~~upports the aim of this exchange and s~~tresses that an effective and independent national justice system could give businesses incentives to develop and invest at national and cross-border level, while at the same time protecting consumers ~~and workers, thus boosting their economic contribution~~;

2018/03/08
Committee: JURI

2018/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Notes the importance of judicial benchmarking for cross-border mutual trust, and for effective cooperation between national justice institutions ~~and for the creation of a common judicial area and a European judicial culture~~; encourages the Commission, therefore, to continue developing concrete indicators tso as~~sess, in practice, the upholding of EU values such as the rule of law or respect for fundamental rights~~ to improve benchmarking;

2018/03/08
Committee: JURI

2018/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcomes~~Takes note of the efforts of the Commission to provide measurable data and draw concrete conclusions on how Member States have improved ~~or may yet improve~~ the quality and efficiency of their justice systems; ~~regrets that there are still instances where, though applicable or available, no data have been provided by some Member States for certain categories;~~ calls on Member States, therefore, to fully collaborate with ~~the Commission~~each other by sharing relevant, up-to- date data;

2018/03/08
Committee: JURI

2018/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Underlines the importance of efficient and timely proceedings in strengthening consumer protection and safeguarding intellectual property and data privacy rights; ~~notes with concern that such proceedings are still too lengthy in some Member States;~~

2018/03/08
Committee: JURI

2018/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Encourages Member States to invest in the continued development and use of ICT tools in their judicial systems, in an effort to make them more accessible and comprehensible to all EU Member State citizens, including those with a~~ny form of~~ disability; emphasises the benefit of ICT systems in reducing costs for all stakeholders involved and in improving the overall efficiency and quality of justice systems, and regrets that their full potential has not yet been reached in all Member States;

2018/03/08
Committee: JURI

2018/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Highlights the need to intensify and diversify the scope of training offered to judges, namely in the fields of gender ~~structures~~equality, judicial ethics, IT skills, court management and communication with parties and the press; ~~underlines furthermore the importance of adequate training in EU law and different EU cooperation structures, such as Eurojust;~~

2018/03/08
Committee: JURI

2018/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Asks the Commission to consider collective redress procedures in next year’s comparative exercise on accessibility factors of justice systems, as it is increasingly significant for facilitating access to justice and efficient dispute resolution;deleted

2018/03/08
Committee: JURI

2018/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Highlights the fact that legal aid for ~~consumers~~those below the poverty threshold ~~remain~~is an essential ~~balancing factor; underlines the role of legal aid in guaranteeing that weaker parties may also have access to justice, a fundamental right under EU law~~factor for justice;

2018/03/08
Committee: JURI

2018/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Calls on the Commission to introduce, during next year’s exercise, a new indicator on access to justice for the LGBTI community, for example concerning access to legal aid, the length of proceedings in LGBTI discrimination cases or, where applicable, the impact of measures such as the reversed burden of proof;deleted

2018/03/08
Committee: JURI

2018/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Stresses the need to address the still existing gender balance disparities ~~and considerable ratio gaps~~ among judges, namely in higher instance courts/supreme courts, at both national and European level; ~~takes note with regret of the recent negative development in the proportion of female professional judges in some Member States;~~

2018/03/08
Committee: JURI

2018/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Highlights that there is still much to do in terms of gender equality in the judicial professions across Europe, for example in terms of gender stereotypes, transparency in appointments, reconciliation between work and non- work responsibilities or the existence of mentoring practices; emphasises the clear discrepancy between the proportion of female professionals at lower levels of the judiciary (including non-judge staff) and that at the higher court and prosecution levels;deleted

2018/03/08
Committee: JURI

2018/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Recalls the 2015 Joint Statement by the European Parliament and the Council stating that Member States should, to the greatest possible extent and in view of the objective of achieving equality between men and women laid down in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union, ensure an equal presence of women and men when appointing candidates as judges at the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union;deleted

2018/03/08
Committee: JURI

2018/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. ~~Underlin~~Notes that, while over half of the Member States increased expenditure on the judicial system per inhabitant in 2015, the determination of financial resources is still mostly based too often on historical or actual costs instead of actual workload or number of court requests;

2018/03/08
Committee: JURI

2018/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

~~17. Welcomes the increased use of alternative dispute resolution systems in most Member States, in particular that of the European online dispute resolution (ODR) platform for consumers and traders;~~deleted

2018/03/08
Committee: JURI

2018/2009(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

~~19. Points out the importance of impartial, i.e. free from arbitrary executive discretion, and comprehensive mechanisms for the appointment, evaluation, transfer or dismissal of judges;~~deleted

2018/03/08
Committee: JURI

2018/0332(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 4

(4) A lively public debate is taking place on summer-time arrangements and some Member States have already expressed their preference to discontinue the application of such arrangements. Furthermore, the public consultation exercise conducted by the Commission in 2018 revealed that 84% of the 4.6 million people who took part would like to discontinue biannual clock changes. In the light of these developments, it is necessary to abide by the will of the peoples of Europe and to continue safeguarding the proper functioning of the internal market and to avoid any significant disruptions thereto caused by divergences between Member States in this area. Therefore, it is appropriate to put an end in a coordinated way to summer-time arrangements.

2019/02/05
Committee: JURI

2018/0332(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7

(7) This Directive should apply from 1 April 201920, so that the last summer-time period subject to the rules of Directive 2000/84/EC should start, in every Member State, at 1.00 a.m., Coordinated Universal Time, on 31 March 201920. Member States that, after that summer-time period, intend to adopt a standard time corresponding to the time applied during the winter season in accordance with Directive 2000/84/EC should change their standard time at 1.00 a.m., Coordinated Universal Time, on 27 October 201920, so that similar and lasting changes occurring in different Member States take place simultaneously. It is desirable that Member States take the decisions on the standard time that each of them will apply as from 201920 in a concerted manner.

2019/02/05
Committee: JURI

2018/0332(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9

(9) Since the objectives of this Directive as regards harmonised time arrangements cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives.deleted

2019/02/05
Committee: JURI

2018/0332(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article premier – paragraph 2

2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, Member States may still apply a seasonal change of their standard time or times in 201920, provided that they do so at 1.00 a.m., Coordinated Universal Time, on 27 October 201920. The Member States shall notify this decision in accordance with Article 2.

2019/02/05
Committee: JURI

2018/0332(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Member States shall adopt and publish, by 1 April 201920 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.

2019/02/05
Committee: JURI

2018/0332(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Joëlle MÉLIN, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

They shall apply those provisions from 1 April 201920.

2019/02/05
Committee: JURI

2018/0161(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4

(4) The absence of any exception in Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 to the protection conferred by a supplementary protection certificate has had the unintended consequence of preventing manufacturers of generics and biosimilars established in the Union from manufacturing, ~~even for the exclusive purpose of exporting to third country~~with a view to enter the Union markets in which such protection does not exist or has expired. A further unintended consequence is that the protection conferred by the certificate makes it more difficult for those manufacturers to enter the Union market immediately after expiry of the certificatemmediately after expiry of the certificate and/or export to countries in which such protection does not exist or has expired, given that they are not in a position to build up production capacity until the protection provided by the certificate has lapsed, by contrast with manufacturers located in third countries where protection does not exist or has expired.

2018/11/28
Committee: JURI

2018/0161(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Joëlle MÉLIN, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7

(7) The aim of this Regulation is to ensure that manufacturers established in the Union are able to compete effectively in those third country markets where supplementary protection does not exist or has expired. It is intended to complement the efforts of the Union’s trade policy to ensure open markets for Union-based manufacturers of medicinal products. I~~ndirectly, i~~t is also intended to put those manufacturers in a better position to enter the Union market immediately after expiry of the relevant supplementary protection certificate, namely the Day-1 entry. It would also help to serve the aim of fostering access to medicines in the Union by helping to ensure a swifter entry of generic and biosimilar medicines onto the market after expiry of the relevant certificate.

2018/11/28
Committee: JURI

2018/0161(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Joëlle MÉLIN, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8

(8) In thoese specific and limited circumstances, and in order to create a level playing field between Union-based manufacturers and third country manufacturers, it is appropriate to ~~restrict~~eliminate the ~~pro~~unintecntion ~~conferred by~~al effects of a supplementary protection certificate so as to allow making for the exclusive purpose of (i) export to third countries and any related acts strictly necessary for making or for the actual export itself. (ii) entry onto the Union market immediately after expiry of the relevant supplementary protection certificate, and any related acts strictly necessary for making or for the actual export itself or entry onto the Union market.

2018/11/28
Committee: JURI

2018/0161(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Joëlle MÉLIN, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

(9) That exception should cover the making of the product~~, including the product which corresponds to the medicinal product protected by a supplementary protection certificate~~ protected by a supplementary protection certificate, including the making of the corresponding medicinal product, in the territory of a Member State, for the exclusive purpose of export to third countries~~, as well as any upstream or downstream acts by the maker or by third parties in a contractual relationship with the maker~~ or countries and/or Day-1 entry on the Union’s market, as well as any upstream or downstream acts, where such acts would otherwise require the consent of the certificate-holder, and are ~~strictly~~ necessary for making for the purpose of export or for the actual export itself or for Day-1 Entry. For instance, such acts may include the supply and import of active ingredients for the purpose of making the corresponding medicinal product ~~to which the product covered by the certificate corresponds~~, or temporary storage of the product or ~~advertising f~~medicinal product or othe ~~exclusiv~~r activities necessary for the purpose of export to third country destinations or Day- 1 Entry.

2018/11/28
Committee: JURI

2018/0161(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Joëlle MÉLIN, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10

(10) The exception should not cover placing the medicinal product made for the exclusive purpose of export and Day 1 entry on the market in ~~the~~a Member State where a supplementary protection certificate is in force~~, either directly or indirectly after export,~~ nor should it cover re- importation of the medicinal product to the market of a Member State in which a certificate is in force. Moreover, it should not cover any act or activity for the purpose of import of medicinal products, or parts of medicinal products, into the Union merely for the purposes of repackaging and re-exporting.

2018/11/28
Committee: JURI

2018/0112(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. When providers of online intermediation services or any user company controlled by those providers offer goods or services which are in competition with those offered by other user companies, the providers of online intermediation services must treat such other user companies fairly, so as not to compromise those companies’ ability and freedom to trade. This fair treatment shall entail: (a) allowing consumers to choose the services to which they have access via the online intermediation service without imposing unjustified constraints on them – for example, by ignoring or changing their default parameters – in making that choice; (b) refraining from interference in the trading relationships between user companies and the consumers who use those companies’ services, and particularly from blocking or otherwise inhibiting exchanges of information or communication between the companies and the consumers, inter alia through the use of advertisements or marketing operations; (c) granting user companies the information required to obtain a degree of interoperability with the provider of online intermediation services, or with its ancillary services, which is the same as that afforded to the services offered by the provider of online intermediation services itself; (d) not denying user companies technical or economic benefits which the provider of online intermediation services extends directly or indirectly to its own services.

2018/10/26
Committee: JURI

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31

2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7

2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(ba) are objective, non-discriminatory, fair and reasonable; and

2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c

2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1

2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO

2018/0112(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

2018/10/08
Committee: IMCO

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 3

(3) In certain policy areas, breaches of Union law may cause serious harm to the public interest, in the sense of creating significant risks ~~for the welfare of~~to society. Where weaknesses of enforcement have been identified in those areas, and whistleblowers are in a privileged position to disclose breaches, it is necessary to enhance enforcement by ensuring effective protection of whistleblowers from retaliation and introducing effective reporting channels.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

(29) Effective detection and prevention of serious harm to the public interest requires that the information reported which qualifies for protection covers not only unlawful activities but also abuse of law, namely acts or omissions which do not appear to be unlawful in formal terms but defeat the object or the purpose of the law and, more generally, any act of wrongdoing that is prejudicial to the public interest.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 31

(31) Retaliation expresses the close (cause and effect) relationship that must exist between the report and the adverse treatment suffered, directly or indirectly, by the reporting person, so that this person can enjoy legal protection. Effective protection of reporting persons as a means of enhancing the enforcement of Union law requires a broad definition of retaliation, encompassing any act or omission occurring in the work-related context which causes them detriment, although this definition is not restrictive or exhaustive.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 44 a (new)

(44a) Keeping whistleblowers’ identity confidential is essential in order to avoid self-censorship. This principle of confidentiality can only be waived in exceptional circumstances in which disclosure of information about a whistleblower’s identity is a necessary and proportionate obligation under Union or national law in the context of investigations or subsequent or current judicial proceedings, to safeguard a right, such as the right of defence of the person concerned. Appropriate sanctions should be instituted which are to be applied in the event of a breach of the principle of confidentiality concerning the whistleblower’s identity.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. With a view to enhancing the enforcement of Union law and policies in specific areas, this Directive lays down common minimum standards for the protection of persons reporting on the following unlawful activities or abuse of law:(Does not affect the English version.)

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. This Directive shall apply to reporting persons acting in a disinterested fashion who have personally gained knowledge of the information working in the private or public sector who acquired information on breaches in a work-related context including, at least, the following:

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2

2. This Directive shall also apply to reporting persons whose work-based relationship is yet to begin in cases where information concerning a breach has been acquired during the recruitment process or other pre-contractual negotiation, as well as to reporting persons whose working relationship has ceased, as well as reporting persons whose employment has ceased.

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1

~~1. ‘breaches’ means actual or potential unlawful activities or abuse of law relating to the Union acts and areas falling within the scope referred to in Article 1 and in the Annex;~~(Does not affect the English version.)

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2

~~2. ‘unlawful activities’ means acts or omissions contrary to Union law;~~(Does not affect the English version.)

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3

(3) ‘abuse of law’ means acts or omissions falling within the scope of Union law or a serious threat or damage to the public interest which do not appear to be unlawful in formal terms but defeat the object or the purpose pursued by the applicable rules;

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 9

9. ‘reporting person’ means a natural or legal person who reports or discloses information on breaches acquired in the context of his or her work-related activities;, in other words someone who discloses or reports, impartially and in good faith, an action he or she was personally aware of, and which constitutes: - a crime or an offence; - a serious and flagrant breach of an international commitment that is regularly ratified or approved by the European Union, or of a unilateral act of an organisation based on this commitment, as well as legal and regulatory provisions; - a serious threat or serious harm to public interest.

2018/09/26
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 12

12. ‘retaliation’ means any threatened or actual act or omission prompted by the internal or external reporting which occurs in a work-related context and causes or may cause unjustified detriment to the reporting person acting in good faith who is reporting on a threat or serious harm to the public interest;

2018/09/26
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(ba) a confidential notification of receipt of the report to the reporting person within no more than seven days following receipt;

2018/09/26
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point d

d) a reasonable timeframe, not exceeding a timeframe of between one month and three months following ~~the report~~notification, to provide feedback to the reporting person about the follow-up to the report;

2018/09/26
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)

(aa) a confidential notification of receipt of the report to the reporting person within no more than seven days following receipt;

2018/09/26
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point g

g) a statement clearly explaining that persons making information available to the competent authority in accordance with this Directive are not considered to be infringing any restriction on disclosure of information imposed by contract or by any legislative, regulatory or administrative provision, and are not to be involved in liability of any kind related to such disclosure. This statement does, however, specify three exceptions to this principle that allow Member States to safeguard secrets protected under conventional and constitutional principles: a) secrets of national defence, b) secrets concerning relations between a lawyer and his/her client, c) medical confidentiality.

2018/09/26
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 4

4. Persons reporting externally to competent authorities or making a public disclosure in accordance with this Directive shall not be considered to have breached any restriction on disclosure of information imposed by contract or by any legislative, regulatory or administrative provision, and incur liability of any kind in respect of such disclosure. However, three exceptions to this principle do allow Member States to safeguard secrets protected under conventional and constitutional principles: a) secrets of national defence, b) secrets concerning relations between a lawyer and his/her client, c) medical confidentiality.

2018/09/26
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Member States shall provide for remedies and/or effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties applicable to natural or legal persons that:

2018/09/26
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2

2. Member States shall provide for remedies and/or effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties applicable to persons making malicious or abusive reports or disclosures, including measures for compensating persons who have suffered damage from malicious or abusive reports or disclosures.

2018/09/26
Committee: JURI

2018/0106(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1

Member States may introduce or retain provisions more favourable to the rights of the reporting persons and the persons who are the subject of the report than those set out in this Directive, without prejudice to Article 16 and Article 17(2), to ensure Member States are able to provide genuine guarantees of confidentiality.

2018/09/26
Committee: JURI

2018/0064(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
–

The Committee [on Legal Affairs] calls on the Committee [on Transport and Tourism], as the committee responsible, to propose rejection [of the Commission proposal].

2018/09/11
Committee: JURI

2017/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcomes~~Takes note of the Commission’s 2016 Annual Report on monitoring the application of EU law, and notes that according to this report, the four fields in which the greatest number of transposition infringement proceedings were opened against Member States in 2016 were the environment, justice and consumers, taxation, and the internal market;

2018/03/02
Committee: JURI

2017/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Considers that the large number of infringement procedures in 2016 shows that ensuring the timely and correct application of EU legislation in the Member States remains a serious challenge ~~and priority; considers that some~~; notes that a number of those infringements are the result of the lack of resources dedicated to public administration in some Member States, ~~sometimes as a~~itself the result of ill-advised austerity measures imposed by the European Union;

2018/03/02
Committee: JURI

2017/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Welcomes~~Takes note of the fall in the number of new EU Pilot files opened in 2016 (790 compared with 881 in 2014); notes, however, that the resolution rate fell slightly compared with 2015 (from 75 % to 72 %);

2018/03/02
Committee: JURI

2017/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Recognises that the primary responsibility for the correct implementation and application of EU law lies with the Member States, but points out that this does not absolve the EU institutions of their duty to respect primary EU law when they produce secondary EU law, even more so in the field of the rule of law and fundamental rights with regard to the CFREUminds the EU institutions of their duty to respect primary EU law when they produce secondary EU law or decide, implement and impose on Member States social, economic or other policies;

2018/03/02
Committee: JURI

2017/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Emphasises that the EU has been set up as a Union based on the rule of law and respect for human rights (Article 2 of the TEU); r~~Reiterates that careful monitoring of the acts and omissions of ~~Member States and~~ EU institutions is of the utmost importance;

2018/03/02
Committee: JURI

2017/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Points out that the EU institutions are bound by the subsidiarity principle and by Member State prerogatives; calls therefore for closer dialogue with national parliaments, in particular when they express concerns about compliance with the subsidiarity principle;

2018/03/02
Committee: JURI

2017/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Recalls that the Commission has a duty to monitor and assess the correct implementation of Union law and respect for the principles and objectives enshrined in the Treaties by the Member States and all the Union institutions and bodies; ~~recommends, therefore, that this task is taken into consideration within the policy cycle for democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (DRF policy cycle);~~ recalls, in this connection, its resolution of 25 October 2016, advising the Commission to bundle, from 2018 onwards, its relevant annual thematic reports with the outcome of existing monitoring mechanisms and periodic assessment tools, to be presented in due time;

2018/03/02
Committee: JURI

2017/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Calls on the Commission to pay particular attention to the implementation of measures adopted in the area of asylum and migration, so as to ensure that they comply with the principles enshrined in the CFREU, and to launch the necessary infringement proceedings where relevant;deleted

2018/03/02
Committee: JURI

2017/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Calls on the Commission to respond effectively to the developing migration and security situations and to enforce the European Agenda on Migration and the related implementation packages efficiently; asks the Member States to implement the Return Directive (2008/115/EC)16correctly and to report regularly on the implementation of the European Agenda on Migration; _________________ 16do its utmost to help Member States combat irregular migration; OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98.

2018/03/02
Committee: JURI

2017/2273(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Encourages the EU institutions to fulfil at all times their duty to respect primary EU law when establishing the provisions of secondary, EU and soft law, developing policies, and signing agreements or treaties with institutions outside the EU, and also to fulfil their duty to assist Member States by all means available in their efforts to transpose EU legislation in all areas and to respect the values and principles of the Union~~, especially with respect to recent developments in Member States~~;

2018/03/02
Committee: JURI

2017/2209(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes with regret that insufficient attention has been paid to the concentration of media ~~ownership~~ in Member States; ~~recalls that EU competition rules play an important role in~~points out the need to prevent~~ing~~ the creation or abuse of dominant positions in the media; calls therefore on the EU Member States ~~and local authorities~~ to monitor media concentration ~~and to provide easily accessible information on media ownership and economic influence over media~~, to keep the public fully informed about media ownership and media dependence, and to take measures to reduce that concentration;

2018/02/05
Committee: JURI

2017/2209(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Underlines that whistle-blowers are a crucial resource for democracy and for investigative journalism ~~and an independent press; calls on the Commission~~; calls on the EU Member States, therefore, to ~~provide EU-wide protection in accordance with the Union objectives of democracy, pluralism of opinion and freedom of express~~guarantee their protection;

2018/02/05
Committee: JURI

2017/2209(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Highlights that the fight against ‘fake news’, ~~namely false news and other~~ disinformation that is spread deliberately via the media, should not result in restricting freedom of internet usage; calls for the Member States and EU institutions to devote sufficient resources to tackling disinformation; is satisfied with the work of the East StratCom Task Force and the establishment of the High Level Expert Group on fake news and online disinformationresist the temptation to use this fight to restrict that freedom.

2018/02/05
Committee: JURI

2017/2139(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Appreciates that the budget implementation for the financial year 2016 represents a very high rate of use of final appropriation (98,23 %), even if slightly lower than the 2015 rate (99,1 %)~~, due mainly to the gradual arrival in 2016 of 12 new Judges at the General Court~~;

2017/12/04
Committee: JURI

2017/2139(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that the 2016 statistics for the three courts which make up the Court of Justice confirm the trend seen in recent years as regards the average duration of proceedings, which remains satisfactory (Court of Justice: 15 months for requests for a preliminary ruling (15,3 months in 2015), 2,7 months for urgent requests for a preliminary ruling (1,9 months in 2015), 19,3 months for direct actions (17,6 months in 2015) and 12,9 months for appeals (14 months in 2015); notes that those statistics contradict the arguments in favour of the Court reforms introduced in 2016 (an increase to the number of judges and the transfer to the Court of the power to rule, at first instance, on disputes between the Union and its staff);

2017/12/04
Committee: JURI

2017/2139(DEC)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Welcom~~Notes the ~~fact that the Court is working towards a gender balance in~~efforts to get more women appointed to positions of high responsibility at the Court and that the European Parliament and the Council have indicated, among their objectives, a balanced representation of genders in appointing new Judges to the General Court (as of this date, five women Judges and two women Advocates General are part of the organisation chart of the Court and ten women Judges are part of the organisation chart of the General Court).

2017/12/04
Committee: JURI

2017/2023(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that there is a lack of coordination in the field of jurisdictional rules, which leads to forum shopping when it comes to claims for the restitution of looted art; notes that Articles 3 and 4 of the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects offer a key compromise between civil law and common law jurisdictions when resolving problems concerning stolen or illegally exported cultural objects resulting from differences among national rules; ~~urges~~asks, therefore, the Commission to consider ~~how the rules of the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention can be implemented in EU and national law~~an exchange between Member States of their legislation and practices related to provenance research, in order to build on each other's successes while adapting them to national contexts for greater effectiveness, and to consider incorporating some of the basic principles of the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on stolen or illegally exported cultural objects in a legislative act;

2018/11/09
Committee: JURI

2017/2023(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that it is time to put an end to the years of convolutions and nuances if a responsible and ethical European art market is to be established; calls on the Commission, in this regard, to encourage the Member States to identify civil law measures to help overcome the difficult problems encountered by private parties seeking the restitution of works of art genuinely belonging to them;

2018/11/09
Committee: JURI

2017/2023(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Notes that theft and looting are on increasing with each conflict and that the aim must therefore also be to prevent the illegal trade in such goods; Calls on Member States to take appropriate action to put an end to the illegal trade in cultural goods from the territories of states at war such as Syria and Iraq, thereby preventing cultural goods from being used as a source of terrorist financing;

2018/11/09
Committee: JURI

2017/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) defines the ~~fundamental~~ role of the Commission as ‘guardian of the Treaties’;

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

2017/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas, according to Article 6(1) TEU, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU) has the same legal value as the Treaties, and is addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union and the Member States when they are implementing Union law (Article 51(1) CFREU);deleted

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

2017/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcom~~Notes the Commission’s 2015 annual report on the application of EU law, and notes that according to this report the three fields in which Member States were mostly subject to transposition infringement proceedings in 2015 were mobility and transport, energy and the environment;

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

2017/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Considers that the large number of infringement procedures in 2015 shows that ensuring the timely and correct application of EU legislation in the Member States remains a serious challenge ~~and priority in the EU~~owing to legislative texts which are against the interests of each Member State;

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

2017/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Emphasises that the EU has been set up as a Union based on the rule of law and respect for human rights (Article 2 TEU); reiterates that careful monitoring of ~~Member States’ and~~ EU institutions’ acts and omissions is of utmost importance, and expresses its concern at the number of petitions to Parliament and complaints to the Commission concerning problems supposedly resolved by the Commission;

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

2017/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Underlines the important role of the social partners, civil society organisations and other stakeholders in creating ~~legislation~~ and in monitoring ~~and reporting shortcomings in the transposition and application of EU law by the Member States~~legislation;

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

2017/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Expresses its concern that the austerity measures which EU institutions imposed on over-indebted EU Member States, in particular the drastic cuts in public spending, have had the effect of reducing significantly the capacity of Member States’ administration and judiciary to assume their responsibility to ~~implement EU law correctly~~wards their citizens;

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

2017/2011(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Regrets the poor state of domestic transposition and practical implementation of EU-level asylum standards (for example regarding the implementation by Member States of the reception conditions directive (Directive 2013/33/EU12 ))13 ; condemns the deficient implementation of the relocation mechanism proposed by the Commission to deal with the refugee crisis by Member States; calls, therefore, on the Commission to pay particular attention to the implementation of measures adopted in the area of asylum and migration so as to ensure that they comply with the principles enshrined in the CFREU, and to launch the necessary infringement proceedings when relevant; _________________ 12Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection, OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 96. 13See inter alia: S. Carrera/S. Blockmans/D. Gross/E. Guild, ‘The EU’s Response to the Refugee Crisis -Taking Stock and Setting Policy Priorities’, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), essay No 20, 16 December 2015 - https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/EU%20R esponse%20to%20the%202015%20Refug ee%20Crisis_0.pdfNotes that the relocation mechanism proposed by the Commission to deal with the migrant crisis has been imposed on the peoples of Europe without democratic consultation;

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

2017/2011(INI)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Gerolf ANNEMANS, Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Calls on the Commission to present to the European Parliament and the Council an objective report on the concrete results of Union legislation on employment, growth and competitiveness in the Member States;

2017/03/10
Committee: JURI

2017/2010(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines that subsidiarity and proportionality are fundamental principles, enshrined by the Member States in the Edinburgh Declaration of 1992, that the EU institutions should take into consideration when exercising EU competences; recalls that these principles are aimed at enhancing the functioning of the Union by ensuring that actions are always taken at the most appropriate level of government; ~~draws attention to the fact that these principles can be distorted to serve Eurosceptic ends and emphasises that the EU institutions should be vigilant in order to avoid and counteract this risk;~~

2017/12/13
Committee: JURI

2017/2010(INI)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Gerolf ANNEMANS, Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Recognises the work done by the Impact Assessment Board (IAB) and its successor as of July 2015 the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB); notes that the IAB and the RSB considered that 23 % of the impact assessments (IAs) reviewed by them in 2015 needed improvements on either subsidiarity or proportionality, or both; observes that in 2016 the percentage of IAs considered unsatisfactory by the RSB was of 15 %; ~~welcomes the fact~~notes that these percentages have decreased compared with previous years~~; underlin~~ but they remain too high; notes that the Commission reviewed all of the IAs concerned taking into account the analyses from the RSB;

2017/12/13
Committee: JURI

2017/2010(INI)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Gerolf ANNEMANS, Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Welcomes the adoption by the Commission in May 2015 of a new Better Regulation package to ensure, inter alia, that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality are applied in a more integrated and comprehensive manner; considers that the new Better Regulation framework should be a tool for the European Union to deliver legislation in full compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; ~~stresses, notwithstanding the above, that it should not give rise to unnecessary delays in the adoption of the relevant legislation;~~

2017/12/13
Committee: JURI

2017/2010(INI)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Gerolf ANNEMANS, Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Praises the Commission’s commitment to ‘evaluate first’ before considering potential legislative changes; considers, in this respect, that the European Union ~~and~~should work closely together with the authorities of the Member States ~~should work closely together~~ to ensure better monitoring, measurement and evaluation of the actual impact of EU regulation on the economy, social structure and environment in the Member States;

2017/12/13
Committee: JURI

2017/2010(INI)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Gerolf ANNEMANS, Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. IRespectfully invites national parliaments to clearly indicate from the outset that their submission is a reasoned opinion under Protocol (No 2) to the Treaties and the legislative proposal(s) it refers to, to clearly state the reasons for which it considers that the proposal breaches the subsidiarity principle, to include a brief summary of the argumentation, and, where possible, to respect the eight- week time limit from the date of transmission of the relevant draft legislative act; notes that this will facilitate a timely and adequate treatment of reasoned opinions by all the institutions involved;

2017/12/13
Committee: JURI

2017/2010(INI)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Gerolf ANNEMANS, Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Is of the opinion that, since the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, the involvement of national parliaments in EU affairs has developed significantly, including through their linking up with other national parliaments; encourages national parliaments to continue and reinforce inter-parliamentary contacts, also on bilateral basis, as a means of enhancing cooperation between Member States, and to do so with a European vision and in a European spirit of cooperation, when necessary, based on the rule of law and fundamental rights; underlines that these contacts can facilitate an exchange of best practices concerning the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

2017/12/13
Committee: JURI

2017/2010(INI)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Gerolf ANNEMANS, Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Draws attention to the fact that in 2016 14 chambers of 11 national parliaments submitted reasoned opinions on the proposal for a Directive amending Directive 96/71/EC of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services3, thus reaching the threshold of one third of the votes required by Article 7(2) of Protocol (No 2) to the Treaties to trigger the so-called ‘yellow card’ procedure; recalls that the arguments put forward by the national parliaments were widely debated in Parliament with the Commission; notes that the Commission engaged with national parliaments within the framework of COSAC; notes that the Commission issued a communication in which it gave extensive reasons for maintaining the proposal4; ~~considers that, with the reasons set out therein, the Commission fully complied with its obligation to give reasons for its decision; _________________ 3~~_________________ 3 COM(2016)0128. COM(2016)0128. 4 Communication of 20.7.2016 from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the National Parliaments on the proposal for a Directive amending the Posting of Workers Directive, with regard to the principle of subsidiarity, in accordance with Protocol No 2 (COM(2016)0505).

2017/12/13
Committee: JURI

2017/2010(INI)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Gerolf ANNEMANS, Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Notes that, in relation to the above-mentioned Commission proposal, seven national chambers sent opinions in the framework of the political dialogue, which mainly considered the proposal as compatible with the principle of subsidiarity; observes that the Committee of the Regions’ Subsidiarity Expert Group considered that the objective of the proposal could be better achieved at EU level;deleted

2017/12/13
Committee: JURI

2017/2010(INI)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Gerolf ANNEMANS, Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Takes note of the changes proposed by some national parliaments to the subsidiarity control mechanism; ~~welcom~~notes the conclusion reached by COSAC that any improvement to the subsidiarity control mechanism should not entail Treaty change; notes that an extension of the eight-week time limit in which national parliaments can issue a reasoned opinion would require an amendment of the Treaties or the Protocols thereto; notes that exclusions in addition to the month of August for the calculation of the eight- week period would ~~unnecess~~improve the scrutiny of the enforcement of and compliance with the principles of subsidiarilty ~~slow down the legislative process and the adopt~~and proportionality; notes, in that regard, that the time that national parliaments currently have to assess compliance with the subsidiarity principle is often considered too short; takes the view that a periond of ~~important legislation~~12 weeks would be more appropriate at the start of the legislative process;

2017/12/13
Committee: JURI

2017/2010(INI)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Gerolf ANNEMANS, Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Notes, further, that national parliaments should be able to issue a reasoned opinion at any point in the legislative process or at the very least at its mid-point and its end;

2017/12/13
Committee: JURI

2017/2010(INI)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Gerolf ANNEMANS, Gilles LEBRETON

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Notes that a number of tools enabling national parliaments and citizens to participate in every step of the legislative process, which ~~ensur~~could be used to guarantee monitoring of respect for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, ~~already~~ exist; encourages, therefore, that full use of these existing tools be made without creating even more complex administrative structures and lengthy procedures in times when the EU is struggling to m~~ake itself understood by its~~eet the needs of the Member States' citizens;

2017/12/13
Committee: JURI

2017/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the majority of the 3D- printed products being created are currently prototypes;

2018/03/01
Committee: JURI

2017/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas a reduction in the number of intermediaries w~~ould~~hich might stem from 3D printing for commercial purposes may eventually give companies the opportunity to repatriate offshore production activities; whereas repatriation could help to maintain the added value of those production activities at local level; whereas by reducing the movement of goods, 3D printing ~~would~~might lower both transport costs and CO2 emissions;

2018/03/01
Committee: JURI

2017/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas 3D-printing technology could help to create new jobs that are in some cases less physically demanding and less dangerous (maintenance technicians, engineers, designers, etc.) and also reduce production and storage costs (low-volume manufacturing, personalised manufacturing, etc.);

2018/03/01
Committee: JURI

2017/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas alerts - aimed at professionals and individual citizens - will be put in place by the Member States to warn of the potential dangers of 3D printing, for example gas emissions during production, and whereas protective measures will be introduced;

2018/03/01
Committee: JURI

2017/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas 3D-printing technology raises specific legal and ethical issues regarding in particular intellectual property and civil liability, and whereas those issues fawill be dealt within by the rMem~~it of the Committee on Legal Affairs~~ber States in line with their existing rules on civil liability;

2018/03/01
Committee: JURI

2017/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas 3D-printing technology also raises security issues, particularly with regard to the manufacturing of weapons, explosives and drugs, and particular care should be taken with regard to production of that kind, with each Member State already having a range of sanctions for all these areas;

2018/03/01
Committee: JURI

2017/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas not all 3D-printing production of objects is ~~unlawfu~~automatically assumed to be illegal, nor are all operators in the sector producing counterfeit objects;

2018/03/01
Committee: JURI

2017/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital O

O. whereas national general liability rules also apply to 3D printing; whereas a specific liability regime could be envisaged for damage caused by an object created using 3D-printing technology, as the number of stakeholders involved in the process often makes it difficult for the victim to identify the person responsible; whereas those rules could make the creator or vendor of the 3D file liable, or the producer of the 3D printer, the producer of the software used in the 3D printer, the supplier of the materials used or even the person who created the object, depending on the cause of the defect discovered;

2018/03/01
Committee: JURI

2017/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that ~~to anticipate~~consideration should be given to anticipating potential problems relating to accident liability or intellectual property infringement, the EU will have to adopt new legislation or tailor existing laws to the specific case of 3D technology; stresses that, in any case, the legislative response should avoid duplicating rules and should take into account projects that are already under way; adds that innovation needs to be accompanied by law, without the law acting as a brake or a constraint connected with the use of 3D printing;

2018/03/01
Committee: JURI

2017/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Notes that solutions ~~of a legal nature~~ could make it feasible to control the legal reproduction of 3D objects protected by copyright, for example, digital and 3D- printing providers could systematically display a notice on the need to respect intellectual property, or a legal limit could be introduced on the number of private copies of 3D objects in order to prevent illegal reproduction, and a national tax on 3D printing could be levied by each Member State to compensate intellectual property rights holders for damages suffered as a result of private copies being made in 3D;

2018/03/01
Committee: JURI

2017/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Stresses, however, that technical solutions – currently underdeveloped – must not be overlooked, for example, the creation of databases of encrypted and protected files and the design of printers connected to and equipped with a system capable of managing intellectual property rights;deleted

2018/03/01
Committee: JURI

2017/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

~~6. Criticises the fact that at this stage, none of those options is wholly satisfactory on its own;~~deleted

2018/03/01
Committee: JURI

2017/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Criticis~~Notes the fact that the Commission has not revised Directive 2004/48/EC during this term, as it had announced it would, and has instead limited itself to presenting non-binding guidelines, without ~~providing clarifications on~~going into detail on any issues specific to 3D printing; welcomes, though, the measures announced by the Commission on 29 November 2017 which are intended to step up intellectual property protection;

2018/03/01
Committee: JURI

2017/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Calls on the Commission to carefully consider the ~~civil liability~~ issues related to 3D- printing technology~~, including~~ when it assesses the functioning of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on ~~the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning~~ liability for defective products;

2018/03/01
Committee: JURI

2017/2007(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Recalls that civil liability is a matter falling in principle under the national legislation of each Member State;

2018/03/01
Committee: JURI

2017/2007(INI)

Joëlle MÉLIN, Sylvie GODDYN, Matteo SALVINI, Jean-François JALKH, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

~~10. Calls on the Commission to explore the possibility of setting up a civil liability regime for damages not covered by Directive 85/374/EEC;~~deleted

2018/03/01
Committee: JURI

2017/0035(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2

(2) The system established by Regulation (EC) No 182/2011 has, overall, proven to work well in practice and struck an appropriate institutional balance as regards the roles of the Commission and the other actors involved. That system should therefore continue to function unchanged except for certain led to a plethora of implementing acts, making it difficult for Parliament and the Council to exercise their control function. It is clear from the number of objections that Parliament has adopted, particularly to the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or pesticides – matters on which public opinion is clear – that the system of adoption and control of implementing acts takes scant account of democratic parliamentary representation. That system should therefore be changed, particularly through the adoption of targeted amendments concerning specific aspects of procedure at the level of the appeal committee. These amendments are intended to ensure that Member State governments assume wider political accountability and ownership of politically sensitive implementing acts ~~without, however, modifying the legal and institutional responsibilities for implementing acts as organised by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011~~.

2018/01/22
Committee: ENVI

2017/0035(COD)

Joëlle MÉLIN, Sylvie GODDYN, Matteo SALVINI, Jean-François JALKH, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4

(4) Experience has shown that, in the vast majority of cases, the appeal committee repeats the outcome of the examination committee and results in no opinion being delivered. The appeal committee has therefore not helped in providing clarity on Member State positions despite the fact that the Member States are consulted at the examination procedure stage, and those positions may remain undisclosed when the matter goes to the vote.

2018/01/22
Committee: ENVI

2017/0035(COD)

Joëlle MÉLIN, Matteo SALVINI, Sylvie GODDYN, Jean-François JALKH, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6

(6) That discretion is, however, ~~significantly~~ reduced in cases relating to the authorisation of products or substances, such as in the area of genetically modified food and feed, as the Commission is obliged to adopt a decision within a reasonable time and cannot abstain from taking a decision. Throughout the procedure, moreover, the Commission may choose to disregard Parliament’s position entirely, as it has done on almost 20 occasions in the past three years, thus, while undoubtedly complying with the Treaties, giving members of the public every reason to be mistrustful of the EU.

2018/01/22
Committee: ENVI

2017/0035(COD)

Joëlle MÉLIN, Matteo SALVINI, Sylvie GODDYN, Jean-François JALKH, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

(9) The voting rules for the appeal committee ~~should~~ought to be changed in order to reduce the risk of no opinion being delivered and to provide an incentive for Member State representatives to take a clear position. To this end only Member States which are present or represented, and which do not abstain, should be considered as participating Member States for the calculation of the qualified majority. In order to ensure that the voting outcome is representative a vote should only be considered valid if a simple majority of the Member States are participating members of the appeal committee. If the quorum is not reached before expiry of the time-limit for the committee to take a decision, it will be considered that the committee delivered no opinion, as is the case today. We would point out, however, that amending the rules for the calculation of the qualified majority in this way would be in breach of the Treaties1a. __________________ 1ahttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData /docs_autres_institutions/parlements_nati onaux/com/2017/0085/PL_SENATE_CO NT1-COM(2017)0085_EN.pdf http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/d ocs_autres_institutions/parlements_natio naux/com/2017/0085/FR_SENATE_CON T1-COM(2017)0085_FR.pdf

2018/01/22
Committee: ENVI

2017/0035(COD)

Joëlle MÉLIN, Matteo SALVINI, Sylvie GODDYN, Jean-François JALKH, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11

(11) Transparency on the votes of Member State representatives at the appeal committee level ~~should be increased~~, and during the prior examination procedure, should be increased, States should be invited to explain their votes and the individual Member State representatives'’ votes should be made public.

2018/01/22
Committee: ENVI

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Takes ‘whistleblower’ to mean anybody who ~~reports on or reveals information on~~, in a courageous and civic- minded gesture, reports in good faith to the authorities which can put a stop to it or punish it an unlawful ~~or wrongful~~ act or an act ~~which undermines~~prejudicial to the public interest, ~~in the context of his or her working relationship,~~ be it in the public or private sector, of a contractual relationship, or of his or her trade union or association activities;

2017/07/26
Committee: JURI

2016/2224(INI)

3. Considers that a breach of the public interest includes~~, but is not limited to,~~ acts of corruption, conflicts of interest, unlawful use of public funds, threats to the environment, health, public safety, national security and privacy and personal data protection, tax avoidance, attacks on workers’ rights and other social rights and attacks on human rights;

2017/07/26
Committee: JURI

2016/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Makes it clear, however, that the concept of the public interest recognised under EU law must not take precedence over respect for privacy or give rise to breaches of the right to protection of personal data, unless the law makes provision for such a step and provided that the essential nature of these rights is upheld and any action taken is consistent with the proportionality principle;

2017/07/26
Committee: JURI

2016/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Takes the view that the scope of the legal provisions on whistleblowers should not cover matters relating to national security, medical secrecy or lawyer-client confidentiality;

2017/07/26
Committee: JURI

2016/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Expresses its concerns about the risks run by whistleblowers at their place of work, in particular the risks of direct or indirect retaliation by the employer and by those working for or acting on behalf of the employer; stresses that retaliation usually takes the form of suspending, slowing down or stopping career progression or even dismissal, along with psychological harassment; stresses that retaliation is a barrier to whistleblowers’ activities; believes that it is necessary to introduce protective measures against destabilising practices; takes the view that retaliation should be penalised and sanctioned effectively; stresses that, once somebody is recognised as a whistleblower in accordance with the definition given above, the measures taken against him or her should be brought to an end;

2017/07/26
Committee: JURI

2016/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Points out the risk that genuine whistleblowers run of having legal and civil proceedings brought against them; stresses that they are often the weaker party in trials; ~~considers it necessary~~points out that a person who denounces or defames others or discloses information for malicious purposes and not solely in the public interest, and not with the aim of triggering the review procedures and debate which are fundamental to a democratic society, does not meet the definition of whistleblower; warns against any move to provide for a reversal of the burden of proof even in respect of retaliation against and pressure on whistleblowers, and advocates, at the very least, that a case should have been made and convincing evidence put forward before the protective measures afforded to genuine whistleblowers are granted; takes the view that confidentiality should be guaranteed ~~throughout the proceedings;~~ at the first stage of the proceedings, but not thereafter;

2017/07/26
Committee: JURI

2016/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. BTakes the view that the procedure should be carried out in two stages: firstly, reporting within the undertaking, administration and/or the press, and then, once a sufficient case has been made, disclosure to the public and lifting of anonymity, so that genuine whistleblowers can be acknowledged by democratic society for their courage and civic- mindedness; believes that the option, at the first stage, to report anonymously would encourage whistleblowers to share information which they would not share otherwise; stresses, in that regard, that clearly regulated means of reporting anonymously should be introduced by each Member State, in keeping with the Charter and the principles enshrined in the Treaties;

2017/07/26
Committee: JURI

2016/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Stresses that ano~~body should~~nymity during the first stage would ensure that nobody loses the benefit of protection on the sole grounds that he or she has legitimately misjudged the facts or that the perceived threat to the public interest did not materialise, provided that, at the time of reporting, he or she had reasonable and/or clear grounds to believe them to be true;

2017/07/26
Committee: JURI

2016/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)

17a. In the light of the principle of actori incumbit probatio, which is common to all national legal systems and international dispute-settlement procedures, urges that the burden of proof should not be reversed, given that it should be necessary only if there are clear indications or a set of evidence to suggest that the person in question qualifies for whistleblower status;

2017/07/26
Committee: JURI

2016/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Stresses the role that trade unions can play in supporting and helping whistleblowers in their dealings within their organisation;

2017/07/26
Committee: JURI

2016/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Stresses that, in addition to the professional risks, whistleblowers also face psychological and financial risks; believes that psychological support should be provided, that the provisions on legal aid should be ~~given~~extended to whistleblowers who ask for it, that ~~financial aid should be given to those who express a duly justified need for it~~police protection should be envisaged if necessary and that compensation for proven serious professional damages should be given as a protective measure if civil proceedings are brought against a whistleblower;

2017/07/26
Committee: JURI

2016/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Calls on the Member States to designate, if a suitable national body already exists, or introduce an independent body responsible for collecting reports, verifying their credibility and guiding whistleblowers, particularly in the absence of a positive response from their organisation;

2017/07/26
Committee: JURI

2016/2224(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls on the Commission to pbro~~pose~~aden the ~~establishment of a similar body at EU level responsible for coordinating~~remit of the European Ombudsman to include the coordination at EU level of Member State activities, particularly in cross-border cases; believes that that ~~European body~~the Ombudsman should also be able to collect reports directly, verify their credibility and guide whistleblowers when the response given by the Member State is obviously not appropriate; ~~considers that the European Ombudsman’s mandate could be extended to serve that purpose;~~

2017/07/26
Committee: JURI

2016/2114(REG)

Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Rule 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2

~~The validity of the mandate of a Member may not be confirmed unless the written declarations required under this Rule and Annex I to these Rules have been made.~~deleted

2016/09/28
Committee: JURI

2016/2114(REG)

Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Rule 7 – paragraph 5

5. In cases where a decision has been taken not to defend the privileges and immunities of a Member, the Member ~~may~~shall be fully within its rights to make a request for reconsideration of the decision, provided that it submit~~ting~~s new evidence. The request for reconsideration shall be inadmissible if proceedings have been instituted against the decision under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, or if the President considers that the new evidence submitted is not sufficiently substantiated to warrant reconsideration.

2016/09/28
Committee: JURI

2016/2114(REG)

Parliament's Rules of Procedure
Rule 42 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

If the committee responsible for the relevant subject matter is of the opinion that a proposal for a legislative act or parts of it do not comply with the principle of subsidiarity or the principle of proportionality, it shall request the opinion of the committee responsible for respect of those principles. The request shall be made no later than four weeks after the announcement in Parliament of referral to the committee responsible for the subject matter.

2016/09/28
Committee: JURI

2016/2066(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

~~10. Calls on the Commission also to assess the need for an obligation to be introduced for Member States to create and maintain national registers of mediated proceedings;~~deleted

2017/04/19
Committee: JURI

2016/2065(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. having regard to the significant effect on ~~European~~the competitiveness of the EU Member States of a comprehensive reform of company law and the obstacles to full implementation of the Directive on cross- border mergers;

2017/02/22
Committee: JURI

2016/2057(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital A

A. whereas protection of health is a fundamental right ~~enshrin~~guaranteed inby the ~~European Convention on Human Right~~Member States;

2016/10/04
Committee: JURI

2016/2057(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas EUMember States’ public budgets, including those covering health expenditure, are under significant constraints;

2016/10/04
Committee: JURI

2016/2057(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital D

D. whereas competition based on smart protectionism can lower costs, reduce expenditure on medicines and improve access to affordable medicines;

2016/10/04
Committee: JURI

2016/2057(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas the EU will need to oversee improvements in a range of fields that have an impact on how medicines are produced and distributed;

2016/10/04
Committee: JURI

2016/2057(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses the importance of observing the principle of subsidiarity, as each Member State must address any shortcomings on the basis of its own particular requirements;

2016/10/04
Committee: JURI

2016/2057(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Calls for support for the progress achieved by the pharmaceutical industry, hitherto driven by European SMEs, which have transformed the standard of healthcare in Europe and helped to prolong life expectancy;

2016/10/04
Committee: JURI

2016/2057(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

~~2. Considers that exclusive protection periods granted to pharmaceuticals through patents or other mechanisms hinder competition, lead to high prices and negatively impact access to needed medicines;~~deleted

2016/10/04
Committee: JURI

2016/2057(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Reiterates that part of the reason why businesses are becoming less competitive and why welfare spending is so high is that EU rules – including rules on drug pricing – are too burdensome;

2016/10/04
Committee: JURI

2016/2057(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that the Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry Report adopted by the Commission in 2009 showed that manufacturers of medicines have developed abusive strategies in connection with patent claims in order to hinder market entry of generic medicines, which should be avoided;deleted

2016/10/04
Committee: JURI

2016/2057(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Calls on the Commission to undertake a critical review of the impact of intellectual-property-related incentives on biomedical innovation, to explore alternatives to monopolies for the financing of medical R&D and to evaluate the functioning of the applicable limitations to patent allocations;deleted

2016/10/04
Committee: JURI

2016/2057(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the European Patent Office (EPO) and the Member States to grant patents on health products that strictly fulfil the patentability requirements of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability ~~as enshrined in the European Patent Convention~~;

2016/10/04
Committee: JURI

2016/2057(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

~~6. Calls on the Commission to encourage Member States to fully implement existing patent limitations and flexibilities when confronted with excessive pricing or abuse of monopoly rights;~~deleted

2016/10/04
Committee: JURI

2016/2032(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines that Eurostat figures show that 2.9 % of the EU’s workforce, i.e. 6.3 million people, were employed in the cultural sector in 2014, which is comparable to the proportion of the workforce employed in the banking and insurance sector; points out, further, that according to estimates the cultural and creative sectors account for more than 3% of jobs in the EU and of EU GDP;

2016/04/28
Committee: CULT

2016/2032(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Highlights the fact that employment in the cultural sector is unlikely to be offshored, as it is connected to specific cultural and historical competences; points out that enterprises in the cultural sector thus have a key role to play in the economic development and in spreading the culture of the regions and their Member States;

2016/04/28
Committee: CULT

2016/2032(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Understands that in order to improve access to finance in the cultural and creative sector it is necessary to develop expertise in assessing the specific risks of a lack of tangible collateral and a dependence on intangible assets; notes that this expertise is needed both within micro- enterprises and SMEs and within the financial institutions, which often do not have the information they require to analyse the economic models employed in the cultural and creative industries; stresses that intellectual property rights can be accepted as collateral;

2016/04/28
Committee: CULT

2016/2032(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Points out, further, that steps should be taken to remedy the undervaluation by financial institutions of the intangible assets held by the cultural and creative industries, so that those institutions can adapt to the complex array of business plans and models employed in the cultural sector;

2016/04/28
Committee: CULT

2016/2032(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Emphasises that, in addition to problems in obtaining funding, SMEs and microenterprises in the cultural sector often face obstacles in the form of red tape and tax formalities; urges, therefore, certain Member States, including France, to consider introducing simplification mechanisms or even tax incentives in order to foster development and recruitment in this growth sector;

2016/04/28
Committee: CULT

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
–

The Committee on Legal Affairs calls on the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, as the committee responsible, to propose rejection of the Commission proposal.

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4

(4) Requirements remain in place which make expansion of service providers' operations across the internal market burdensome and unappealing, such as multiple and disparate authorisation schemes before different authorities and, which, regarding establishment, fail to achieve mutual recognition of conditions previously complied with in other Member States or, regarding temporary cross-border provision of services apply disproportionate or unjustified restrictions. As a consequence, service providers face multiple and disproportionate compliance costs when going cross-border.deleted

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7

(7) Addressing remaining obstacles to more cross-border activities in services will help to strengthen competition, resulting in more choice and better prices for consumers as well as more competitive services sectors creating new jobs, promoting productivity and ensuring a more attractive climate for investment and innovation.deleted

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8

(8) This Regulation aims to facilitate the freedom of establishment and the free movement of services within the single market in areas already covered by Directive 2006/123/EC through the adoption of further measures on approximation of provisions which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market. It should be based on Article 114 of the TFUE.deleted

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

(9) In view of this, the present Regulation introduces a European services e-card which should facilitate certain service providers to expand service provision across internal market borders, either in the form of temporary provision of services or via secondary establishment through branches, agencies or offices.deleted

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14

(14) The European services e-card should be fully electronic, rely almost exclusively on data provided by reliable sources, limit the use of documents to the minimum necessary and allow for multilingual processing to avoid translation costs. In order to make the procedure fully electronic and allow for administrative cooperation between home and host Member States. The Internal Market Information system set up by Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council22 should be used under this Regulation. A specific electronic platform should be developed for the purpose of issuing, updating, suspending, revoking or cancelling European services e-cards, as well as to make valid European services e-cards electronically available to their holders and to competent authorities. _________________ 22 Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System and repealing Commission Decision 2008/49/EC ( ‘the IMI Regulation’ ) (OJ L 316, 14.11.2012, p. 1)deleted

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15

(15) In order to submit an application for a European services e-card, a harmonised multilingual form should be made available ensuring that the elements necessary for identification of the provider and of the services for which the e-card is requested, as well as for the assessment of specific requirements applicable to the services at stake, such as those regarding proof of its establishment in the home Member State, good repute or insurance coverage, are included and thus made available to coordinating authorities in both home and host Member States.deleted

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16

(16) The power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission to specify the details of the information to be contained in the standard application form and the documents to be included in the application as supporting evidence. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts.deleted

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17

(17) During the implementation of this Regulation, Member States should inform and update the Commission of procedures imposed under national law on incoming cross-border providers wishing to provide services temporarily or through a branch, agency or office, including the information and documents to which those procedures pertain, to allow for the preparation of application forms. In order to ensure uniform implementation concerning the necessary information to be provided for the application of the European service e-card, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council23 . _________________ 23 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13)deleted

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18

(18) Description of the terms of coverage of a mandatory or voluntary insurance included in written contracts might be difficult to find. Insurance distributers, as well as bodies appointed by a Member State to provide compulsory insurance, should therefore provide a description of the core elements of coverage to their client in the format of an insurance certificate. This certificate should be annexed to the application form. In order to ensure uniform implementation of this part of the Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to adopt a harmonised format for the certificates. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council.deleted

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23

(23) In order to ensure uniform implementation of this Regulation in relation to procedures to issue and update of a European services e-card, as well for formalities regarding secondment of staff and movement of self-employed other than the one referred to in the preceding recital, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to adopt rules on electronic processing of those procedures. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council.deleted

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25

(25) Procedures for issuing, updating, suspending or revoking a European services e-card should make use of documents only in exceptional circumstances, when more detailed information is absolutely essential. In any case, all of such documents should be used and accepted in simple form.deleted

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26

(26) EU law may allow, in the context of formalities for secondment of staff as regulated professionals or movement of self-employed in relation to control of professional qualifications, for documents to be submitted in special form, for example as certified or authenticated documents. Such certification and authentication, once performed in the Member State of original issue of the document in question, should be accepted throughout the EU.deleted

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27

(27) Certified translation of documents should not be required under this Regulation. The electronic platforms dealing with procedures should provide for a technical solution to translate their content. In order to ensure uniform implementation of this part of the Regulation implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Rules on translation of documents in the context of posting of workers and application for attestations regarding their social security contributions should not be covered by this Regulation.deleted

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30

(30) Service providers obliged to acquire professional liability insurance in Member States where they have not been active often have difficulty demonstrating their claims history regarding cover obtained elsewhere. Claims histories are an essential element to insurance distributers in ascertaining and assessing the risk profile of a potential client. Demonstration is difficult due to poor communication between insurance distributers across internal market borders but also to disparities in describing the track-record of an insured party, even within the same Member State. Insurance distributers and bodies appointed by a Member State to provide compulsory insurance cover should therefore be obliged to issue a statement relating to the third party liability claims which can then be used across borders and even domestically, should a service provider change insurance distributer.deleted

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31

(31) In order to ensure uniform implementation of this Regulation in relation to the presentation of the description of liabilities, implementing powers to adopt rules on the standardised presentation format of that statement should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council.deleted

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32

(32) A statement relating to claims history should be instrumental in allowing insurance distributers and bodies appointed by a Member State to provide compulsory indemnity insurance to ban discriminatory practices towards cross- border providers of which information is more scarce and difficult to obtain. The same non-discrimination principle should apply to professional organisations who offer group cover to their members or other service providers.deleted

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37

(37) This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular, this Regulation, through the introduction of the European services e-card and related administrative facilities and procedures, seeks to promote the rights of establishment and the right to provide services in any Member State, preventing any discrimination on grounds of nationality and ensuring impartial, fair and reasonably speed procedure, in accordance with Articles 15, 21 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, while ensuring full respect of the protection of personal data, including in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council28, and giving due consideration to the risk of abuse of rights provided for respectively in Articles 8 and 54 of that Charter. _________________ 28Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1).deleted

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2

2. The Commission shall specify how the information referred to in points (a) to (h) above is to be presented in the standard form and lay down the technical details of the standard form throughout the European Union, by way of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination referred to in Article 16(2). The application shall include all the necessary supporting documents, uploaded by the applicant into the electronic platform where the standard form for application is made available.deleted

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3

~~3. The Commission is empowered to adopt~~ delegated acts in accordance with Article 15 in order to further specify: a) details of the information elements of the standard form listed to in letters paragraph 1, points (a) to (h), which shall be contained in the standard form; b) further documents or categories of documents that are exceptionally required to be included as supporting evidence.;

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5

1. Where information on insurance cover is entered into the standard form, in accordance with point (g) of the third subparagraph of Article 4(1), a corresponding insurance certificate shall be attached to the application form. The insurance distributor or the body appointed by a Member State to provide compulsory insurance shall provide the certificate to the applicant upon request. The insurance certificate shall contain information about the existence of professional liability insurance for the services concerned, including the territorial scope of such cover in other Member States, the insured risks, the duration, the insured sums per claim and for all claims in a year, and possible exclusions. 2. The Commission may adopt a harmonised format for the insurance certificate as referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 by means of an implementing act. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination referred to in Article 16(2).Article 5 deleted Insurance certificate

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4

4. The Commission is empowered to adopt technical rules by means of implementing acts concerning the design of the multilingual form referred to in paragraph 1. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 16(2).deleted

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3

3. The Commission may adopt technical rules by means of implementing acts concerning the design of the multilingual form referred to in paragraph 1. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 16(2).deleted

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Providers shall have the right to fully electronic handling and processing of the procedures for the application, issue and update of a European services e-card as well as to fully electronic formalities in accordance with Articles 6(1), 6(3) and 7.deleted

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2

2. The Commission shall adopt technical specifications for the electronic handling and processing of the procedures referred to in paragraph 1 by means of implementing acts, including measures to ensure the integrity, confidentiality and accuracy of the information, as well as the conditions and the procedures for the holder of a European services e-card to download such information, to allow third parties to access such information and for those third parties to verify that same information. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination referred to in Article 16(2).deleted

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3

3. A certified translation shall not be requested for documents used in the context of procedures to issue, update, suspend or revoke a European services e- card or in the context of formalities for secondment of staff and movement of self- employed in accordance with Articles 6 (1) and 7. This shall not affect the right of Member States to require non-certified translations of documents in one of their official languages, in accordance with EU law.deleted

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 4

4. The Commission shall adopt technical rules for automatic translation of information and documents in the context of procedures to issue, update, suspend or revoke a European services e- card or in the context of formalities for secondment of staff and movement of self- employed in accordance with Articles 6(1) and 7 by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination referred to in Article 16(2).deleted

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11

Statement relating to third party liability 1. An insurance distributor shall issue, within 15 days of receiving a request to this effect from the policyholder, a statement concerning the third party liability claims related to his activities covered by the contract of professional liability insurance, during the preceding years of the contractual relationship up to a maximum of 5 years, or to the absence of such claims, describing the liabilities arising from provision of the services in question which were the object of a claim. 2. The Commission may adopt rules on the standardised presentation format of the statement referred to in paragraph 1 by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination referred to in Article 16(2).Article 11 deleted claims

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12

Obligations for insurance distributors Insurance distributors and bodies appointed by a Member State to provide compulsory insurance shall duly take into account in the acceptance policy and in the calculation of premiums, in a non- discriminatory manner, the experience of the provider as reflected in the claims statement issued in accordance with Article 11, as presented by the provider.Article 12 deleted

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13

Obligations for professional organisations Professional organisations, including competent authorities as defined in points (i) and (ii) of Article 3(18), which offer group cover related to professional liability insurance to their members or to providers of services under specific conditions, shall ensure access to such cover, under the same conditions in a non-discriminatory manner, to providers of services from other Member States which express an interest in benefiting from such group cover.Article 13 deleted

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0403(COD)

Gilles LEBRETON, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

The Commission shall adopt technical rules for the handling and processing of exchanges of information and mutual assistance referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 by means of implementing acts. This shall be without prejudice to the functioning of the interconnection systems referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article and their respective technical specifications.deleted

2017/12/05
Committee: JURI

2016/0402(COD)

Proposal for a directive
–

The Committee on Legal Affairs calls on the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, as the committee responsible, to propose rejection of the Commission proposal.

2017/12/06
Committee: JURI

2016/0402(COD)

Gilles LEBRETON, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET

Proposal for a directive
Recital 2

(2) Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council17establishes general provisions facilitating the exercise of the freedom of establishment for service providers and the free movement of services. It provides inter alia that Member States should provide for administrative simplification, for instance offering electronic procedures via Points of Single Contact, simplifying existing procedures and the need for certified documents and making best use of a system of tacit approval. The Directive also sets a framework furthering the freedom to provide services on a temporary basis in another Member State. _________________ 17Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 36).deleted

2017/12/06
Committee: JURI

2016/0402(COD)

Gilles LEBRETON, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12

(12) The main purpose of the European services e-card is to introduce a uniform and simplified procedure for service providers wishing to expand provision of services across internal market borders. The e-card represents an electronic certificate stating that a service provider is legally established in a Member State (the home Member State). Host Member States where a service provider is interested in expanding to should furthermore not apply, to holders of an e-card, their prior authorisation or notifications schemes put in place under national law to control access to or exercice of service activities, which is already the object of control before issue of a European services e- card.deleted

2017/12/06
Committee: JURI

2016/0402(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6

2017/06/23
Committee: JURI

2016/0284(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

(9) In order to facilitate the clearance of rights for the provision of ancillary online services across borders it is necessary to provide for the establishment of the country of origin principle as regards the exercise of copyright and related rights relevant for acts occurring in the course of the provision of, the access to or the use of an ancillary online service. That principle of country of origin should apply exclusively to the relationship between right holders (or entities representing right holders such as collective management organisations) and broadcasting organisations and solely for the purpose of the provision of, the access to or the use of an ancillary online service. The principle of country of origin should not apply to any subsequent communication to the public or reproduction of content which is protected by copyright or related rights and which is contained in the ancillary online service.deleted

2017/03/14
Committee: CULT

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9

2017/06/23
Committee: JURI

2016/0284(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13

(13) In order to provide legal certainty to operators of retransmission services offered on satellite, digital terrestrial, closed circuit IP-based, mobile or similar networks, and to overcome disparities in national law regarding such retransmission services, rules similar to those that apply to cable retransmission as defined in Directive 93/83/EEC should apply. The rules established in that Directive include the obligation toemphasis should be placed on the principle of contractual freedom, which ensures genuine protection of right holders and content creators in general. It is also necessary to underscore the possibility of exerciseing the right to grant or refuse authorisation to an operator of a retransmission service through a collective management organisation. This is without prejudice to Directive 2014/26/EU18 and in particular to its provisions concerning rights of right holders with regard to the choice of a collective management organisation. _________________ 18Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi- territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market, OJ L 84, 20.3.2014, p. 72–98 or otherwise.

2017/03/14
Committee: CULT

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10

2017/06/23
Committee: JURI

2016/0284(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18

2017/06/23
Committee: JURI

2016/0284(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 5

(5) ~~A Member State may provide that, w~~Where a right holder authorises the initial transmission ~~within its territory~~in a Member State of a work or other protected subject matter, the ~~right holder shall be deemed to have agreed not to~~/she may exercise his or her rights in retransmission on an individual basis ~~but to exercise them in accordance with~~, or in accordance with the arrangements set out in this Regulation.

2017/03/14
Committee: CULT

2016/0284(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1

~~Article 3 shall not apply to~~The conditions applicable in the case of the rights exercised by a broadcasting organisation in respect of its own transmission shall be the same as those set out in Article 3, irrespective of whether the rights concerned are its own or have been transferred to it by other holders of copyright or by holders of related rights.

2017/03/14
Committee: CULT

2016/0284(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – title

Application of the principle of ‘country of ~~origi~~destination’ to ancillary online services

2017/06/23
Committee: JURI

2016/0284(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1

2017/06/23
Committee: JURI

2016/0284(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2

2017/06/23
Committee: JURI

2016/0284(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1

(1) Holders of copyright and related rights other than broadcasting organisations may exercise their rights to grant or refuse the authorisation for a retransmission ~~only~~ through a collective management organisation or through any other means they deem appropriate, in keeping with the principle of contractual freedom.

2017/06/23
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5

2017/03/16
Committee: CULT

2016/0280(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6

(6) The exceptions and the limitation set out in this Directive should seek to achieve a fair balance between the rights and interests of authors and other rightholders on the one hand, and of users on the other. ~~They can~~It should be possible for them to be applied only in certain special cases ~~which do~~and not to conflict with the normal exploitation of the works or other subject- matter ~~and do not~~or unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholders.

2017/03/16
Committee: CULT

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 10

(10) This legal uncertainty should be addressed by providing for a ~~mandatory~~n optional exception to the right of reproduction ~~and also to the right to prevent extraction from a database~~. The new exception should be without prejudice to the existing mandatory exception on temporary acts of reproduction laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, which should continue to apply to text and data mining techniques which do not involve the making of copies going beyond the scope of that exception. Research organisations should also benefit from the exception when they engage into public- private partnerships.

2017/03/16
Committee: CULT

2016/0280(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 9

(9) Some national legal systems and Union law already provides certain exceptions and limitations covering uses for scientific research purposes which may apply to acts of text ~~and data~~ mining. ~~Howev~~In order, t~~hose exceptions and limitations ar~~o preserve the integrity of the cop~~tional and not fully adapted to~~yright principle, the use ~~of technologies in scientific research. Moreo~~exceptions should remain optional. However, where researchers have ~~lawful access to content~~obtained content lawfully, for example through subscriptions to publications or open access licences, it should be possible for the terms of the licences ~~may ex~~to include text ~~and data~~ mining. As research is increasingly carried out with the assistance of digital technology, there is a risk that the ~~Union's~~ competitive position of EU Member States as a research area will suffer from a possible impossibility to undertake text mining unless steps are taken to address the legal uncertainty ~~for text and data mining~~surrounding it.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 13

(13) ~~There is no need~~It is necessary to provide for compensation for rightholders as regards uses under the text ~~and data~~ mining exception introduced by this Directive ~~given that in view of the nature and scope of the exception the harm should be minimal~~, as the principle of compensation is central to the concept of copyright.

2017/03/16
Committee: CULT

2016/0280(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 14

(14) The national legal systems of some Member States, as well as Article 5(3)(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC, allows Member States to introduce an exception or limitation to the rights of reproduction, communication to the public and making available to the public for the sole purpose of, among others, illustration for teaching. In addition, Articles 6(2)(b) and 9(b) of Directive 96/9/EC permit the use of a database and the extraction or re-utilization of ~~a substantial part of its contents~~extracts from works or content from them for the purpose of illustration for teaching. The scope of those exceptions or limitations as they apply to digital uses is unclear. In addition, there is a lack of clarity as to whether those exceptions or limitations would apply where teaching is provided online and thereby at a distance. ~~Moreover, the existing framework does not provide for a cross-border effect. This s~~Therefore, this optional exception or limituation ~~may hamper the development of digitally- supported teaching activities and distance learning. Therefore, the introduction of a new mandatory exception or limitation is necessary~~should be extended to digital teaching to ensure that educational establishments benefit from full legal certainty when using extracts from works or other subject-matter in digital teaching activities, including online ~~and across borders~~.

2017/03/16
Committee: CULT

Proposal for a directive
Recital 13

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 14

(14) The national legal systems of some Member States, as well as Article 5(3)(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC, allows Member States to introduce an exception or limitation to the rights of reproduction, communication to the public and making available to the public for the sole purpose of, among others, illustration for teaching. In addition, Articles 6(2)(b) and 9(b) of Directive 96/9/EC permit the use of a database and the extraction or re-utilization of ~~a substantial part of its contents~~extracts from works or content from them for the purpose of illustration for teaching. The scope of those exceptions or limitations as they apply to digital uses is unclear. In addition, there is a lack of clarity as to whether those exceptions or limitations would apply where teaching is provided online and thereby at a distance. Moreover, the existing framework does not provide for a cross-border effect. This situation may hamper the development of digitally- supported teaching activities and distance learning. Therefore, the introduction of a new mandatory exception or limitation is necessaryTherefore, this optional exception or limitation should be extended to digital teaching to ensure that educational establishments benefit from full legal certainty when using extracts from works or other subject-matter in digital teaching activities, including online ~~and across borders~~.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 20

(20) Member States should therefore ~~be required to~~have the option of provideing for an exception to permit cultural heritage institutions and libraries to reproduce works and other subject-matter permanently in their collections for preservation purposes, for example to address technological obsolescence or the degradation of original supports. Such an exception should allow for the making of copies by the appropriate preservation tool, means or technology, in the required number and at any point in the life of a work or other subject-matter to the extent required in order to produce a copy for preservation purposes only.

2017/03/16
Committee: CULT

2016/0280(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 21

(21) For the purposes of this Directive, works and other subject-matter should be considered to be permanently in the collection of a cultural heritage institution or library when copies are owned or permanently held by the cultural heritage institution, for example as a result of a transfer of ownership or licence agreements.

2017/03/16
Committee: CULT

2016/0280(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 22

(22) Cultural heritage institutions or libraries should benefit from a clear framework for the digitisation and dissemination~~, including across borders,~~ of out-of-commerce works or other subject-matter. However, the particular characteristics of the collections of out-of-commerce works mean that obtaining the prior consent of the individual rightholders may be very difficult. This can be due, for example, to the age of the works or other subject- matter, their limited commercial value or the fact that they were never intended for commercial use. It is therefore necessary to provide for measures to facilitate the licensing of rights in out-of-commerce works that are in the collections of cultural heritage institutions ~~and thereby to allow the conclusion of agreements with cross- border effect in the internal market~~or libraries.

2017/03/16
Committee: CULT

2016/0280(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 16

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 25

(25) Considering the variety of works and other subject-matter in the collections of cultural heritage institutions and libraries, it is important that the licensing mechanisms introduced by this Directive are available and can be used in practice for different types of works and other subject-matter, including photographs, sound recordings and audiovisual works. In order to reflect the specificities of different categories of works and other subject- matter as regards modes of publication and distribution and to facilitate the usability of those mechanisms, specific requirements and procedures may have to be established by Member States for the practical application of those licensing mechanisms. It is appropriate that Member States consult rightholders, users and collective management organisations when doing so.

2017/03/16
Committee: CULT

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 30

(30) To facilitate the licensing of rights in audiovisual works to video-on-demand platforms, this Directive re~~quires~~commends that Member States to set up a negotiation mechanism allowing parties willing to conclude an agreement to rely on the assistance of an impartial body. The body should meet with the parties and help with the negotiations by providing professional and external advice. Against that background, Member States should decide on the conditions of the functioning of the negotiation mechanism, including the timing and duration of the assistance to negotiations and the bearing of the costs. Member States should ensure that administrative and financial burdens remain proportionate to guarantee the efficiency of the negotiation forum.

2017/03/16
Committee: CULT

Proposal for a directive
Recital 20

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 21

(21) For the purposes of this Directive, works and other subject-matter should be considered to be permanently in the collection of a cultural heritage institution or library when copies are owned or permanently held by the ~~cultural heritage~~ institution, for example as a result of a transfer of ownership or licence agreements.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 34

(34) The rights which may possibly be granted to the publishers of press publications by Member States that so decide under this Directive should have the same scope as the rights of reproduction and making available to the public provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC, insofar as digital uses are concerned. They should also be subject to the same provisions on exceptions and limitations as those applicable to the rights provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC including the exception on quotation for purposes such as criticism or review laid down in Article 5(3)(d) of that Directive.

2017/03/16
Committee: CULT

2016/0280(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 35

(35) The protection granted to publishers of press publications by Member States which so wish under this Directive should not affect the rights of the authors and other rightholders in the works and other subject-matter incorporated therein, including as regards the extent to which authors and other rightholders can exploit their works or other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated. Therefore, publishers of press publications should not be able to invoke the protection granted to them against authors and other rightholders. This is without prejudice to contractual arrangements concluded between the publishers of press publications, on the one side, and authors and other rightholders, on the other side.

2017/03/16
Committee: CULT

Proposal for a directive
Recital 34

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2

(2) ‘text ~~and data~~ mining’ means any automated analytical technique aiming to analyse text ~~and data~~ in digital form in order to generate information such as patterns, trends and correlations;

2017/03/29
Committee: CULT

Proposal for a directive
Recital 45

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1

1. This Directive ~~lays down rules which aim at further harmonising~~aims to modernise the Union law applicable to copyright and related rights ~~in the framework of the internal market~~, taking into account in particular digital ~~and cross-border~~ uses of protected content. It also lays down rules on exceptions and limitations, and on the facilitation of licences as well as rules aiming at ensuring ~~a well-functioning marketplace for~~that the interests of all the stakeholders in the exploitation of works and other subject- matter are properly balanced.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1

1. Member States ~~shall~~may, if they so decide, provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the digital use of their press publications.

2017/03/29
Committee: CULT

2016/0280(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 2

2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall leave intact and shall in no way affect any rights provided for in national legal systems and Union law to authors and other rightholders, in respect of the works and other subject-matter incorporated in a press publication. Such rights may not be invoked against those authors and other rightholders and, in particular, may not deprive them of their right to exploit their works and other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated.

2017/03/29
Committee: CULT

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – title

Use of works and other subject-matter in digital ~~and cross-border~~ teaching activities

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point a

Directive 96/9/EC
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b

(b) where there is use for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long as the source is indicated and to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, without prejudice to the optional exceptions and the limitation provided for in Directive [this Directive];.

2017/03/29
Committee: CULT

2016/0280(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point b

Directive 96/9/EC
Article 9 – point b

(b) in the case of extraction for the purposes of illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long as the source is indicated and to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, without prejudice to the optional exceptions and the limitation provided for in Directive [this Directive];.

2017/03/29
Committee: CULT

2016/0280(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point a

Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point c

(c) in respect of specific acts of reproduction made by publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments or museums, or by archives, which are not for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage, without prejudice to the optional exceptions and the limitation provided for in Directive [this Directive];.

2017/03/29
Committee: CULT

2016/0280(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b

Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point a

(a) use for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long as the source, including the author's name, is indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible and to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, without prejudice to the optional exceptions and the limitation provided for in Directive [this Directive];.

2017/03/29
Committee: CULT

2016/0280(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) ~~is accompanied by the indication of the source, including the author's name, unless this turns out to be impossible.~~[Does not affect the English version]

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Any contractual provision contrary to the exception provided for in paragraph 1 shall be inapplicable. The exception provided for in paragraph 1 shall not apply in cases where licences are available.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point c

Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 12 – paragraph 4

(e) to examine the impact of the transposition of Directive [this Directive] on the ~~functioning of the interna~~proper balance between the interests of all mpar~~ket~~ties involved and to highlight any transposition difficulties;

2017/03/29
Committee: CULT

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4

4. Member States ~~may~~shall provide for fair compensation for the harm incurred by the rightholders due to the use of their works or other subject-matter pursuant to paragraph 1.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1

Member States may provide for fair compensation for the harm incurred by the rightholders due to the use of their works or other subject-matter pursuant to paragraph 1. Article 5 Preservation of cultural heritage Member States shall provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive, permitting cultural heritage institutions and libraries, to make copies of any works or other subject-matter that are permanently in their collections, in any format or medium, for the sole purpose of the preservation of such works or other subject-matter and to the extent necessary for such preservation.

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

2016/0280(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Gilles LEBRETON

Proposal for a directive
Article 8

1.Works or other subject-matter covered by a licence granted in accordance with Article 7 may be used by the cultural heritage institution in accordance with the terms of the licence in all Member States. 2.Member States shall ensure that information that allows the identification of the works or other subject-matter covered by a licence granted in accordance with Article 7 and information about the possibility of rightholders to object referred to in Article 7(1)(c) are made publicly accessible in a single online portal for at least six months before the works or other subject-matter are digitised, distributed, communicated to the public or made available in Member States other than the one where the licence is granted, and for the whole duration of the licence. 3.The portal referred to in paragraph 2 shall be established and managed by the European Union Intellectual Property Office in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 386/2012.Article 8 deleted Cross-border uses

2017/04/28
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1

(1) ~~In order to realise the objective of ensuring good functioning of~~The abolition of State barriers under the internal market, has ~~an area without internal fron~~pushed private partiers ~~in which the free movement of inter alia goods and services is ensured, it is not sufficient to abolish, as between Member States, only State bar~~faced with unfair competition into needing to find other ways of protecting their industriers. S~~uch abolition can be undermined by private parties putting in place obstacles inconsistent with internal market freedoms. That occurs where traders operating in one Member State~~tripped of the protection afforded by national authorities, traders operating in one Member State have had to be imaginative in finding ways of blocking or limiting the access to their online interfaces, such as websites and apps, of customers from other Member States wishing to engage in cross-border commercial transactions (a practice known as geo- blocking)~~. It also occurs through other actions by certain traders involving the application of~~; certain traders, keen to preserve their freedom to conduct business, apply different general conditions of access to their goods and services with respect to such customers from other Member States, both online and offline. WThere~~as there may sometimes b~~ are objective justifications for such differential treatment~~, in other cases traders deny consumers wishing to engage in cross- border commercial transactions access to goods~~: while the Internet is a fantastic area of freedom which should be protected, it would be dangerous to disregard both consumer protection and the interests of very small, small and medium-sized enterprises, which have drawn attention to the various risks entailed in ending geo-blocking: standardisation orf s~~ervices, or apply different conditions in this regard, for purely commercial reasons~~upply could produce higher prices; the fact that many online sales offers are tied to national markets; or even, the fear that abolishing geo- blocking could stop customised sale of content to a local distributor.

2016/12/06
Committee: CULT

Dominique BILDE, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4

2016/12/06
Committee: CULT

2016/0152(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6

(6) Considering that some regulatory and administrative barriers for traders have already been removed across the Union in certain services sectors as a result of the implementation of Directive 2006/123/EC, in terms of material scope, consistency should be ensured between this Regulation and Directive 2006/123/EC. As a consequence, the provisions of this Regulation should not apply inter alia to non- audio-visual electronically supplied services, the main feature of which is the provision of access to ~~and use of~~ copyright protected works or other protected subject matter, ~~subject however to the specific exclusion provided for in Article 4 and the subsequent evaluation of that exclusion as provided for in Article 9~~these rights aiming notably to maintain and promote cultural diversity and conserve the heritage related thereto. Audio-visual services, including services the main feature of which is the provision of access to broadcasts of sports events and which are provided on the basis of exclusive territorial licenses, are excluded from the scope of this Regulation. Access to retail financial services, including payment services, should therefore also be excluded~~, notwithstanding the provisions of this Regulation regarding non-discrimination in payments~~.

2017/02/10
Committee: JURI

2016/0152(COD)

Dominique BILDE, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5

(5) This Regulation aims at ~~preventing discrimination based on customers' nationality, place of residence or place of establishment~~maintaining the principle of territoriality, including via geo-blocking, in cross-border commercial transactions between traders and customers relating to the sales of goods and the provision of services within the Union. It seeks to a~~ddress direct as well as indirect discrimination~~cknowledge the justification for differential treatment, both direct and indirect, in certain cases, thus also covering unjustified differences of treatment on the basis of other distinguishing criteria which lead to the same result as the application of criteria directly based on customers' nationality, place of residence or place of establishment. Such other criteria can be applied, in particular, on the basis of information indicating the physical location of customers, such as the IP address used when accessing an online interface, the address submitted for the delivery of goods, the choice language of made or the Member State where the customer's payment instrument has been issued.

2016/12/06
Committee: CULT

Dominique BILDE, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20

(20) Finally, in the situation where the trader provides services and those services are received by the customer in the premises of or at a location chosen by the trader and different from the Member State of which the customer is a national or in which the customer has his or her place of residence or place of establishment, the application of different general conditions of access for reasons related to such criteria ~~should not~~may also be justified ~~either~~. Those situations concern, as the case may be, the provision of services such as hotel accommodation, sport events, car rental, and entry tickets to music festivals or leisure parks. In those situations, the trader does not have to register for VAT in another Member State nor arrange for cross-border delivery of goods.

2016/12/06
Committee: CULT

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12

2017/02/10
Committee: JURI

2016/0152(COD)

Dominique BILDE, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26

(26) This Regulation should not affect the application of the rules on competition, and in particular Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. Agreements imposing on traders obligations not to engage in passive sales within the meaning of Commission Regulation (EU) No 330/201029 to certain customers or to customers in certain territories are generally considered restrictive of competition and cannot normally be exempted from the prohibition laid down in Article 101(1) TFEU. Even when they are not caught by Article 101 TFEU, in the context of the application of this Regulation, they disrupt the proper functioning of the internal market and they may be used to circumvent the provisions of this Regulation. The relevant provisions of such agreements and of other agreements in respect of passive sales requiring the trader to act in violation of this Regulation should therefore be automatically void. However, this Regulation, and in particular its provisions on access to goods or services, should not affect agreements restricting active sales within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 330/2010. _________________ 29Commission Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 of 20 April 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ L 102, 23.4.2010, p. 1).deleted

2016/12/06
Committee: CULT

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15

2017/02/10
Committee: JURI

2016/0152(COD)

Dominique BILDE, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31

(31) In order to allow for the bringing of actions for injunctions aimed at the protection of the collective interests of consumers with respect to acts contrary to this Regulation in accordance with Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council31 , that Directive should also be amended, so as to include a reference to this Regulation in its Annex I. _________________ 31 Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests (OJ L 110, 1.5.2009, p. 30).deleted

2016/12/06
Committee: CULT

2016/0152(COD)

Dominique BILDE, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32

(32) Traders, public authorities and other interested parties should have sufficient time to adapt to, and ensure compliance with, the provisions of this Regulation. In light of the particular characteristics of electronically supplied services, other than services the main feature of which is the provision of access to and use of copyright protected works or other protected subject matter, it is appropriate to apply the prohibition of Article 4(1)(b) only from a later date with respect to the provision of those services.deleted

2016/12/06
Committee: CULT

2016/0152(COD)

Dominique BILDE, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33

(33) I~~n order to achieve the objective of effectively address~~t is necessary to maintain the principle of territoriality and the freedom of undertakings to take measures entailing direct and indirect di~~scrimination~~fferential treatment based on the nationality, place of residence or place of establishment of customers~~, it is appropriate to adopt a Regulation, which directly applies in all M~~. In this context, the national authorities seem ber States. This is necessary in order to guarantee the uniform application of the non- discrimination rules across the Union and their entering into force at the same time. Only a Regulation ensures the degree of clarity, uniformity and legal certainty which is necessary in order to enable customers to fully benefit from those rulest placed to adopt regulations, as these principles concern specific aspects of local and national production and the national rights of consumers.

2016/12/06
Committee: CULT

2016/0152(COD)

Dominique BILDE, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34

(34) Since the objective of this Regulation, namely the prevention of direct and indirect discrimination based on nationality, place of residence or place of establishment of customers, including geo-blocking, in commercial transactions with traders within the Union, cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States, due to the cross-border nature of the problem and the insufficient clarity of the existing legal framework, but can rather, by reason of its scale and potential effect on trade in the internal market be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.deleted

2016/12/06
Committee: CULT

2016/0152(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16

2017/02/10
Committee: JURI

2016/0152(COD)

Dominique BILDE, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35

(35) This Regulation respects fundamental rights and observes the principle recognised in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular this Regulation seeks to ensure full respect of Articles 16 and 17 thereof,deleted

2016/12/06
Committee: CULT

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26

2017/02/10
Committee: JURI

2016/0152(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27

2017/02/10
Committee: JURI

2016/0152(COD)

Dominique BILDE, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33

(33) I~~n order to achieve the objective of effectively addressing~~t is necessary to maintain the principle of territoriality and the freedom of undertakings to use direct ~~and~~or indirect di~~scrimination~~fferentiated treatment based on the nationality, place of residence or place of establishment of customers, it is appropriate to adopt a Regulation, which directly applies in all Member States. This is necessary in order to guarantee the uniform application of the non- discrimination rules across the Union and their entering into force at the same time. Only a Regulation ensures the degree of clarity, uniformity and legal certainty which is necessary in order to enable customers to fully benefit from those rule. In this context, the national authorities seem to be best placed to take measures, given that these principles concern specific aspects of local and national production and the national rights of consumers.

2017/02/10
Committee: JURI

2016/0152(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34

2017/02/10
Committee: JURI

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3

2017/02/10
Committee: JURI

2016/0152(COD)

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4

2017/02/10
Committee: JURI

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2

2017/02/10
Committee: JURI

Marie-Christine BOUTONNET, Dominique BILDE, Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2

2017/02/10
Committee: JURI

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4

Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 3 – paragraph 1

1. Member States shall ensure freedom of reception and ~~shall not~~may restrict retransmissions on their territory of audiovisual media services from other Member States for reasons which fall within the fields coordinated by this Directive, provided that they give reasons to justify doing so.

2016/10/27
Committee: CULT

2016/0151(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4

Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point b

(b) prejudices or presents a serious and grave risk of prejudice to public morality, public policy or public security, including the safeguarding of national security and defence; or

2016/10/27
Committee: CULT

2016/0151(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4

Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c

(c) prejudices or presents a serious and grave risk of prejudice to public health, the lives of people and animals or the preservation of plants.

2016/10/27
Committee: CULT

2016/0151(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4

Directive 2010/13/EU
Article 3 – paragraph 3 – point a

(a) during the 126 months preceding the notification referred to in point (b) of this paragraph, the media service provider has, in the opinion of the Member State concerned, contravened point (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 2 on at least two occasions;

2016/10/27
Committee: CULT

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15

(15) The effectiveness and efficacy of the mutual assistance mechanism should be improved. Information requested should be provided in a timely manner and the necessary enforcement measures should be adopted in a timely manner. The Commission should therefore set bindingcative time periods for competent authorities to reply to information and enforcement requests, and clarify procedural and other aspects of handling information and enforcement requests, by means of implementing measures,

2017/02/06
Committee: JURI

2016/0148(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19

(19) Widespread infringements with a Union dimension may cause large scale harm to a majority of consumers in the Union. They therefore require a specific Union-level coordination procedure with the Commission as the ~~mandatory~~ coordinator. To ensure that the procedure is launched in a timely, coherent and effective manner and that the conditions are verified in a uniform manner, the Commission should be in charge of verifying whether the conditions for the launch of the procedure are fulfilled. Evidence and information collected during the common action should be used seamlessly in national proceedings when required,

2017/02/06
Committee: JURI

2016/0148(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27

(27) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation and exercise of the minimum powers of competent authorities, set time limits and set out other details of procedures to address intra-Union infringements, widespread infringements and details of the surveillance mechanism and administrative cooperation among competent authorities, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council60 , _________________ 60Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2. 2011, p. 13-18).deleted

2017/02/06
Committee: JURI

2016/0148(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 5

5. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts setting out the time limits, standard forms and details of the procedures for requests for information. The implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2).deleted

2017/02/06
Committee: JURI

2016/0148(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4

4. The requested authority shall reply to the request using the procedures for requests for enforcement measures and within the time limits ~~set out~~indicated by the Commission ~~in the implementing act~~.

2017/02/06
Committee: JURI

2016/0148(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 5

5. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts setting out the time limits, standard forms and details of the procedures for requests for enforcement measures. The implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2).deleted

2017/02/06
Committee: JURI

2016/0148(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 6

6. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts setting out the time limits, standard forms and details of the procedures involving designated bodies. The implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2).deleted (Paragraph 5 of Article 13 of the Commission proposal is incorrectly numbered 6.)

2017/02/06
Committee: JURI

2016/0148(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 7

7. The Commission may adopt implementing acts setting out the details of the procedures to address cases of disagreement between competent authorities under paragraphs 3 and 4. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2).deleted

2017/02/06
Committee: JURI

2016/0148(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20

The Commission may adopt implementing acts setting out the details of the procedures for common actions for widespread infringements, in particular the standard forms for notifications and other exchanges between competent authorities and the Commission. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2).Article 20 deleted Implementing powers

2017/02/06
Committee: JURI

2016/0148(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27

The Commission may adopt implementing acts setting out the details of the procedures for common actions for widespread infringements with a Union dimension, in particular the standard forms for notifications and other exchanges between competent authorities and the Commission. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2).Article 27 deleted Implementing powers

2017/02/06
Committee: JURI

2016/0148(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 3

3. The Commission may adopt implementing acts setting out the details of the implementation of traders' rights of defence in coordinated and common actions. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2).deleted

2017/02/06
Committee: JURI

2016/0148(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 4

4. The Commission may adopt implementing acts setting out the details of the procedures for sweeps. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2).deleted

2017/02/06
Committee: JURI

2016/0148(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 6

6. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts setting out the details of the functioning of the alert mechanism, including in particular standard forms for alerts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2).deleted

2017/02/06
Committee: JURI

2016/0148(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 35 – paragraph 5

5. The Commission may adopt implementing acts setting out the details of the designation and participation of other entities in the alert mechanism. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2).deleted

2017/02/06
Committee: JURI

2016/0148(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 2

2. The Commission may adopt implementing acts setting out the details of the exchange of other information relevant for the detection of infringements under this Regulation. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2).deleted

2017/02/06
Committee: JURI

2016/0148(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 4

4. The Commission may adopt implementing acts necessary to develop the framework for cooperation under paragraphs 1 and 2. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2).deleted

2017/02/06
Committee: JURI

2016/0148(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 3

3. The Commission may adopt implementing acts necessary to develop the framework for exchange of information referred to paragraph 1. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2).deleted

2017/02/06
Committee: JURI

2016/0148(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 43 – paragraph 4

~~4. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts necessary to implement the database. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2).~~deleted

2017/02/06
Committee: JURI

2016/0148(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 2

2. The Commission shall adopt implementing acts necessary to develop the online standard forms and details of the national enforcement plans referred to in Article 45. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 48(2).deleted

2017/02/06
Committee: JURI

2016/0130(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18 a (new)

(18a) It is necessary to take smart protectionist measures to deal with any social dumping by third countries that do not have the same concern for protecting the health of their workers.

2016/12/09
Committee: JURI

2015/2352(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Considers that the introduction of criminal liability at EU level could add a layer of deterrence beyond civil penalties, which could improve protection of the environment and compliance with safety measures; calls on the Commission to prepare and submit to Parliament its first implementation report on the OSD in a timely fashion, and no later than 19 July 2019, in order to allow the latter to revisit the introduction of criminal liability for offshore safety violations leading to offshore accidents based on concrete and systematic data;deleted

2016/06/22
Committee: JURI

2015/2352(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

~~14. Asks the Commission to consider the possibility of introducing further legislation, which would effectively safeguard offshore oil and gas operations before a severe accident takes place;~~deleted

2016/06/22
Committee: JURI

2015/2351(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1

— having regard to Articles 6, 165 and 166 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

2016/04/27
Committee: CULT

2015/2351(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas young people should be helped to tackle the challenges they face through a more ~~coordinated and~~ targeted use of resources at national and EU level; whereas, however, as the Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the renewed framework for European cooperation in the youth field makes clear, youth unemployment cannot be tackled without deep-rooted structural reforms, including a revision of the austerity policies which have destroyed jobs in most European countries;

2016/04/27
Committee: CULT

2015/2351(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas ~~there is a need to reinforce the mainstreaming of~~ youth policy ~~and~~requires cross sectorial cooperation ~~within the EU~~ in order to guarantee that policy making takes into account young people’s situations and needs;

2016/04/27
Committee: CULT

2015/2351(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcom~~Notes the 2015 ‘Youth Report’ based on the Commission communication on the implementation of the renewed framework for European cooperation in the youth field (2010-2018) of 15 September 2015, w~~ith the main results of the latest 3- year cycle of the EU Youth Strategy and proposing priorities for the next cycle (COM(2015)0492~~hich shows that so far the EU has failed to resolve the issue of youth unemployment: in some Member States the youth unemployment rate remains very high (50.1% in Greece), while in others, such as France, it has increased since the Youth Employment Initiative was established (21.5% in 2011 compared with 22.8% in 2014);

2016/04/27
Committee: CULT

2015/2351(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Views the Open Method of Coordination as an appropriate means for framing youth policies; reiterates its call for closer cooperation on youth issues at local, regional, national and EU level, in compliance with the subsidiarity principle;

2016/04/27
Committee: CULT

2015/2351(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Stres~~Recognises the importance of the Structured Dialogue as a means of listening to young people, both youth organisations and non- organised individuals, about their real needs in order to conduct the implementation and development of youth policies more effectively at all levels and to foster active citizenship among young people; stresses, however, that the development of these policies should also take into account tried and tested experience, national education priorities and the intergenerational dialogue, as the older generation have much to pass on, especially in the areas of learning and training;

2016/04/27
Committee: CULT

2015/2351(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Underlines the importance of the role of family and its cooperation with schools, local communities and churches to guide young people towards full integration in society; points out that too often teachers and professors are having to act as replacement parents in areas where the family unit has proved inadequate, and that this additional role can undermine the status and profession of teacher;

2016/04/27
Committee: CULT

2015/2351(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Urges the Member States to provide effective training in the national language, in according to the principles of multilingualism and non-discrimination and based on national legislation and European principles, and to maintain educational institutions that teach in the mother tongue of national or language minoritiesance with national law, given that, according to the indicators contained in the report entitled Education at a Glance 2015, on average across all OECD countries, an individual with the right skills in reading and writing will be 4.2 times more likely to find a job than an individual with little skill in this area;

2016/04/27
Committee: CULT

2015/2351(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Calls for better coordination between education and training curricula and the needs of the changing labour markets; stresses, however, that while better coordination is necessary, it will not address the problem of job shortages, and that the main need is to implement structural reforms, including a revision of the posted workers directive, the actual effect of which has been to create social dumping, meaning that in some sectors young people are having to face unfair competition from labour which is 30% to 50% cheaper;

2016/04/27
Committee: CULT

2015/2351(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Stresses the need to include elements of entrepreneurial learning at all levels of education and training and the need to promote and uphold policies to foster youth entrepreneurship in the cultural and creative field in order to create jobs; stresses that the process of setting up a business differs greatly from one Member State to another, and that in some countries it is still very complicated for young entrepreneurs to start a business, particularly owing to administrative difficulties, problems obtaining credit and the burdens imposed by labour legislation;

2016/04/27
Committee: CULT

2015/2351(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Emphasises the importance of addressing skills shortages and mismatches ~~by promot~~; points out that mobility for learners can be a good tool for training and fac~~ilitating mobility for learners through a better use of all EU tools and programmes;~~ quiring new skills but that consideration should be given to the problems of 'brain drain' to which mobility programmes may give rise, depriving certain Member States of the human and economic resources which are essential to their prosperity;

2016/04/27
Committee: CULT

2015/2351(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Encourages the Member States to make full use of the Erasmus+ programme ~~in order to improve the employment prospects of young people, foster cross- borde~~, which enables young people to gain new experiences and new skills, but stresses that mobility alone cannot solve the problem of unemployment and that priority should be given first to matching skills with the needs of the labour cmar~~eer and labour mobility~~ket, enhancing learning and improving the acquisition of basic knowledge;

2016/04/27
Committee: CULT

2015/2351(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. ~~Urges the Member States to take the necessary measures to implement the Youth Guarantee scheme; calls for continued political commitment to th~~Has some doubts still about the effectiveness of the Youth Guarantee scheme; points out that that this scheme was originally designed to ensure sustainable labour-market integration through high quality offers, but that in some Ycou~~th Guarantee as a long-term, structural reform, ensuring sustainable labour-market integration through~~ ntries, such as France, 75% of 'future-oriented jobs' are in the non-profit sector or lead to training only in a third of cases; calls for all youth initiatives not to lead in reality to insecure jobs for young people, whigch ~~quality offers~~only bring about a fictitious, short-term fall in unemployment;

2016/04/27
Committee: CULT

2015/2351(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Stresses that young people’s voluntary activities, for example in the personal services sectors, should be supported and better recognised for their value as an important form of non-formal learning; emphasises, however, that these activities should not become a new tool for increasing the insecurity of youth employment;

2016/04/27
Committee: CULT

2015/2351(INI)