BETA

22 Amendments of Nicola DANTI related to 2018/0090(COD)

Amendment 64 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
(7) Furthermore, any fines imposed as penalties should take into account the total worldwide annual turnover and profits of the infringing trader and any fines that have been imposed on the trader in other Member States for the same infringement in, particular, in the context of the widespread infringements of consumer law and widespread infringements with a Union dimension that are subject to coordinated investigation and enforcement in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/2394.
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 73 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
(9) To ensure that Member State authorities can impose effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties in relation to widespread infringements of consumer law and to widespread infringements with a Union dimension that are subject to coordinated investigation and enforcement in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/2394, fines should be introduced as a mandatory element of penalties for such infringements. In order to ensure deterrence of the fines, Member States should set in their national law the maximum fine for such infringements at a level that is at least 4% of the trader's annual turnover in the Member State concernedtotal worldwide annual turnover.
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 80 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
(10) Where, as a result of the coordination mechanism under Regulation (EU) 2017/2394, a single national competent authority within the meaning of that Regulation imposes a fine on the trader responsible for the widespread infringement or the widespread infringement with a Union dimension, it should be able to impose a fine of at least 4 % of the trader’s annual turnover in all Member States concerned by the coordinated enforcement actiontotal worldwide annual turnover.
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 106 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
(19) Specific transparency requirements for online marketplaces should therefore be provided in Directive 2011/83/EU to inform consumers using online marketplaces about the main parameters determining ranking of offers, whether they enter into a contract with a trader or a non-trader (such as another consumer), whether consumer protection law applies and which trader is responsible for the performance of the contract and for ensuring consumer rights when these rights apply. This information should be provided in a clear and comprehensible manner and not only through a reference in the standard Terms and Conditions or similar contractual document. The information requirements for online marketplaces should be proportionate and need to strike a balance between a high level of consumer protection and the competitiveness of online marketplaces. Online marketplaces should not be required to list specific consumer rights when informing consumers about their applicability or non- applicability. The information to be provided about the responsibility for ensuring consumer rights depends on the contractual arrangements between the online marketplace and the relevant third party traders. Online marketplace may refer to the third party trader as being solely responsible for ensuring consumer rights or describe its specific responsibilities where it assumes the responsibility for certain aspects of the contract, for example, delivery or the exercise of the right of withdrawal. The obligation to provide information about the main parameters determining ranking of search results and their relative importance is without prejudice to any trade secrets regarding the underlying algorithms. This information should explain the main default parameters used by the marketplace but does not have to be presented in a customized manner for each individual search query.
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 140 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
(33) Directive 2011/83/EU provides fully harmonised rules regarding the right of withdrawal from distance and off- premises contracts. In this context, two concrete obligations have been shown to constitute disproportionate burdens on traders and should be deleted.
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 151 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
(34) The first relates to the consumer right to withdraw from sales contracts concluded at a distance or off-premises even after using goods more than necessary to establish their nature, characteristics and functioning. According to Article 14(2) of Directive 2011/83/EU, a consumer is still able to withdraw from the online/off-premises purchase even if he or she has used the good more than allowed; however, in such a case, the consumer can be held liable for any diminished value of the good.deleted
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 159 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
(35) The obligation to accept the return of such goods creates difficulties for traders who are required to assess the ‘diminished value’ of the returned goods and to resell them as second-hand goods or to discard them. It distorts the balance between a high level of consumer protection and the competitiveness of enterprises pursued by Directive 2011/83/EU. The right for consumers to return goods in such situations should therefore be deleted. Annex I of Directive 2011/83/EU 'Information concerning the exercise of the right of withdrawal' should also be adjusted in accordance with this amendment.deleted
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 167 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36
(36) The second obligation concerns Article 13 of Directive 2011/83/EU, according to which traders can withhold the reimbursement until they have received the goods back, or until the consumer has supplied evidence of having sent them back, whichever is the earliest. The latter option may, in some circumstances, effectively require traders to reimburse consumers before having received back the returned goods and having had the possibility to inspect them. It distorts the balance between a high level of consumer protection and the competitiveness of enterprises pursued by Directive 2011/83/EU. Therefore, the obligation for traders to reimburse the consumer on the mere basis of the proof that the goods have been sent back to the trader should be deleted. Annex I of Directive 2011/83/EU 'Information concerning the exercise of the right of withdrawal' should also be adjusted in accordance with this amendment.deleted
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 173 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 41
(41) Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU guarantees the freedom to conduct a business in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices. However, marketing across Member States of products as being identical when, in reality, they have a significantly different composition or characteristics may mislead consumers and cause them to take a transactional decision that they would not have taken otherwise. of products as being seemingly identical or similar when, in reality, they have different composition or characteristics, without the consumer being clearly and comprehensively informed thereof, may mislead consumers and cause them to take a transactional decision that they would not have taken otherwise. Assessments of whether different composition or characteristics exist may vary depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, but generally speaking, in cases where: one or more ingredients or their ratio in the product differs from another marketed product under the same or similar trademark or designation; this difference may change the economic behaviour of the average consumer, who would have taken a different purchasing decision where he was aware of such a difference. In order to assess whether the appearance is seemingly identical, any words, data, trademarks, brand names, illustrations or symbols relating to a particular product and placed on the package, the document, the inscription or the label in the field of vision most likely to be spotted by the consumer at first glance and which will enable him to recognise the product immediately in terms of its characteristics, taste or nature and, where appropriate, its trademark, shall be taken into account.
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 219 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)
Directive 2005/0029/EC
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – point f (new)
(3a) In Article 7(4), the following point is added: “(f) in the case of ranking of offers presented to the consumer as result of his search query, the main ranking parameters and the preferential treatment of certain offers;”
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 236 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2005/29/EC
Article 11 a – paragraph 2
2. Contractual remedies shall include, as a minimum, the possibility for the consumer to unilaterally terminate the contract, obtain compensation for damages or price reduction.
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 264 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Directive 2005/29/EC
Article 13 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall ensure that the penalties for widespread infringements and widespread infringements with a Union dimension within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 2017/29394 include the possibility to impose fines, the maximum amount of which shall be at least 4 % of the trader's annual turnover in the Member State or Member States concernedtotal worldwide annual turnover.
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 282 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)
Directive 2005/29/EC
Annex 1 – point 23 a (new)
(6a) In Annex I, the following point is inserted: “23a. Creating the false impression that a review of a product or a service was submitted by a consumer who used the product or service.”
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 294 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)
Directive 2005/29/EC
Annex I – point 31 a (new)
(6a) In Annex I, the following point is inserted: “31a. Restricting or preventing a consumer to make use of the right of withdrawal laid down in Article 9(1) of Directive 2011/83/EU.”
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 344 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2011/83/EU
Article 6 a – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) whether consumers’ reviews have been subject to a control of their reliability and, if so, the main characteristics of such control;
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 362 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2011/83/EU
Article 6 a – paragraph 1 – point d b (new)
(db) whether and how algorithms or automated decision making were used, to present offers or determine prices, including personalised pricing techniques.
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 368 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2011/83/EU
Article 6 a – paragraph 1 c (new)
The operator of an online marketplace shall be liable for damages arising from the failure to take reasonable steps to remove misleading information or made this information inaccessible after having received a notification of misleading information presented by users.
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 370 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2011/83/EU
Article 6 a – paragraph 1 e (new)
The operator of an online marketplace shall be liable for damages occurred to the consumer due to misleading statements made by the operator about suppliers or products offered by suppliers.
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 371 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4 a (new)
Directive 2011/83/EU
Article 6 b (new)
(4a) The following Article is inserted: “Article 6b Reputational feedback systems 1. An online marketplace operator, who provides a reputational feedback system must provide information about the modalities of collection, processing and publication of ratings and reviews. 2. The reputational feedback system must comply with standards of professional diligence. 3. A reputational feedback system is presumed to comply with standards of professional diligence in the following cases: (a) if the operator of the online marketplace claims that that reviews originate from real customers it has to take reasonable and proportionate steps to verify that reviews are based on a confirmed transaction. (b) if a review has been solicited in exchange for any benefit, this must be indicated. (c) if a review is rejected, the reviewer must be informed without undue delay about the rejection and the reasons for such rejection. (d) reviews must be published without undue delay. (e) the order in which reviews are presented by default must not be misleading. Users of the online marketplace must be able to view reviews in chronological order. (f) if the reputational feedback system excludes older reviews, this must be indicated to the users of the online marketplace. The exclusion period must be reasonable but not shorter than 12 months. (g) if reviews are consolidated into an overall rating, the total number of reviews on which the rating is based must be indicated. (h) the operator of the online marketplace must provide a free-of- charge complaint mechanism which allows a user of the online marketplace to submit a reasoned notification if it has doubts regarding the authenticity of a review. 4. Upon termination by the online marketplace operator or the online marketplace consumer, the operator must provide a facility for existing reviews to be transferred to a different reputational feedback system in a structured, commonly used and machine-readable format.”
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 375 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4 a (new)
Directive 2011/83/EU
Article 6 b (new)
(4a) The following Article is inserted: “Article 6b Information requirements for offers considered to be illegal Where the offer for the good or service that has been sold was notified to and removed by the online marketplace on ground that is illegal after the consumer is bound by a distance or off-premises contract, or any corresponding offer, on an online marketplace, the online marketplace shall promptly provide the following information to the consumer in a clear and comprehensible manner: (a) that the product sold to them or the offer thereof is illegal or apparently illegal and was removed; (b) the identity of the seller that placed the offer, which was removed; (c) the reason why the offer is considered to be illegal or apparently illegal was removed.”
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 435 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 10
Directive 2011/83/EU
Article 24 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall ensure that the penalties for widespread infringements and widespread infringements with a Union dimension within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 2017/29394 include the possibility to impose fines, the maximum amount of which shall be at least 4% of the trader’s annual turnover in the Member State or Member States concernedworldwide turnover.
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 482 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Directive 1998/06/EC
Article 8 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall ensure that the penalties for widespread infringements and widespread infringements with a Union dimension within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 2017/29394 include the possibility to impose fines, the maximum amount of which shall be at least 4 % of the trader’s annual turnover in the Member State or Member States concernedworldwide turnover.
2018/10/01
Committee: IMCO