Activities of Momchil NEKOV related to 2018/2008(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Dual quality of products in the Single Market (debate) BG
Amendments (70)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 23 a (new)
Citation 23 a (new)
– having regard to the Commission communication of 11 April 2018 on A New Deal for Consumers (COM(2018) 183),
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Citation 4
Citation 4
– having regard to Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s State of the Union speech of 13 September 2017, where he stressed that it is not acceptable that in some parts of Europe people are sold food of lower quality than in other countries, despite the packaging and the branding being identical;
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 23 b (new)
Citation 23 b (new)
– having regard to the proposal for Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on better enforcement and modernization of EU consumer protection rules (COM(2018) 185/3),
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Citation 4 a (new)
Citation 4 a (new)
– having regard to the Commission communication of 11 April 2018 on A New Deal for Consumers (COM(2018)183):
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Citation 4 b (new)
Citation 4 b (new)
– having regard to the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on better enforcement and modernisation of EU consumer protection rules (COM(2018)185/3);
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Citation 4 c (new)
Citation 4 c (new)
– having regard to the Commission proposal to update the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive in order to make explicit that national authorities can assess and address misleading commercial practices that involve the marketing of products as being identical in several EU countries, if their composition or characteristics are significantly different;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Citation 4 d (new)
Citation 4 d (new)
– having regard to the European Parliament major interpellation of 15 March 2017 on the differences in declarations, composition and taste of products in central/eastern and western markets of the EU (O-000019/2017);
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Citation 4 e (new)
Citation 4 e (new)
– having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 11 June 2013 on a new agenda for European Consumer Policy (P7_TA(2013)0239);
Amendment 11 #
Ca. whereas President Juncker stressed in his 2017 State of the Union Address that it is not acceptable that in some parts of Europe, people are sold food of lower quality than in other countries, despite the packaging and branding being identical;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. whereas there have been cases of substantial differences in products such as baby foods, which questions the principles and claims of adjusting to local preferences;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
Db. whereas a strengthened and more efficient enforcement cooperation framework would also boost consumer trust and reduce consumer harm;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas in its 2018 Work Programme, the Commission announced plans to propose ‘A New Deal for Consumers’, a targeted revision of the EU consumer directives following on from the Fitness Check of EU consumer and marketing laws, the Commission suggested to update the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive in order to make explicit that national authorities can assess and address misleading commercial practices involving the marketing of products as being identical in several EU countries, if their composition or characteristics are significantly different;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas analyses of product content and labelling have been carried out in approved laboratories in a number of EU countries, including Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Hungary, Slovenia and Slovakia; whereas products were compared with the same products from countries such as Austria and Germany among others;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas shortcomings in the implementation and enforcement of applicable EU food law requirements, for instance in the labelling of mechanically separated meat1a or the use of food additives2a, have regularly been reported by the European Commission’s Health and Food Audits and Analysis services; _________________ 1ahttp://ec.europa.eu/food/audits- analysis/overview_reports/details.cfm?rep _id=76 2ahttp://ec.europa.eu/food/audits- analysis/overview_reports/details.cfm?rep _id=115
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas products differentiation and innovation should not be restricted as such but consumers should not be misled;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
B a. whereas the Member States are not in a position of comparing on their own all food products in the remaining Member States at a given moment;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
B b. whereas a common EU body or a common system of notification or data sharing can guarantee instant access to information about the products' composition and ingredients;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Recital B c (new)
Recital B c (new)
B c. whereas some producer representatives have agreed to amend their product recipes in some countries so that identical products are offered in the Single Market;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines that results of various tests conducted in several Member States have proven that there are differences between products which are advertised and distributed in the single market under the same brand and with the same packaging; Notes that according to a survey10a conducted for a national competent authority, a vast majority of consumers are bothered about such differences; _________________ 10a Survey of the Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority conducted in 2016. http://www.szpi.gov.cz/clanek/tz- 2016-vyzkum-cesky-spotrebitel-zada- stejne-kvalitni-potraviny-jako- evropsky.aspx
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the analyses show that certain products contain less meat, or less of other ingredients, in certain countries, in most cases those countries which joined the EU in 2004, 2007 and 2013; whereas the analyses found instances of the same products being sold at considerably higher prices in those countries than in the so- called ‘old Member States’, which even though does not breech the principles of the free market economy indicates misuse of the brand perception;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas proven differences in ingredients could in the long term affect consumers’ health, for example where the level of fat and/or sugar is higher than expected and when consumers are particularly vulnerable such as children and people with dietary and/or health issues;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas reformulation activities to reduce fat, sugars and salt contents in food are lagging behind in many Central, Eastern and South-Eastern European countries;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas there have been cases of substantial differences in products such as baby foods, which questions the principle and current methodology of adjusting products to local preferences;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes, therefore, the recent initiatives announced by the Commission to address this issue, in particular its commitment to delivering a common testing methodology and, allocating a budget for its preparation and enforcement and for collection of further evidence and updating the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the allocation of EUR 2 million to develop a methodology for, and conduct, comparative testing of food products in different Member States; notes that high level analyses have already been conducted, which should be taken into consideration in designing and implementing the said methodology; expects the testing to be completed at the earliest possible date, preferably in 2018;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas several public opinion surveys have shown that consumers are agitated by such differences in quality, and feel as second class citizens of the EU;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Takes note of the mandate given by the European Council to the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain to address the issue of dual quality; encourages Member States and their competent authorities to actively participate in ongoing initiatives, including the development of a common methodology and collection of further evidence; Stresses the need for active involvement of parties representing consumers' interests, including representatives of consumer organizations and research organizations that have conducted product tests in Member States; Regrets that the European Parliament has been neither involved nor properly informed of the progress made so far;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas the brand has a significant impact on consumer perception of the product, its value and its quality;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph –1 (new)
Paragraph –1 (new)
-1. Welcomes the recent Commission initiatives to address the issue, in particular the updating of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Welcomes the public interests towards the topic in the countries, where analyses were conducted and notes that the citizens' trust in the functioning of the Single Market is at stake, which could have negative impact both for the Union and for the various stakeholders involved, including the producers;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the allocation of EUR 2 million for the development of a common testing methodology, and the inclusion in the EU budget for 2018 of a pilot project that aims to assess different aspects of dual quality for several categories of products; urges Member States and national authorities to actively participate in ongoing initiatives to facilitate the process; highlights the importance of in-depth and timely analysis of food but also non-food products;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Welcomes the adoption by Parliament of a pilot project for 2018 that will involve a series of market investigations into several categories of consumer products to assess different aspects of dual quality; Believes that this pilot project should continue in 2019 to deepen the knowledge and cover also non- food sector; Calls for stronger involvement of Members of the European Parliament to oversee this pilot project;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Notes that the Single Market is accessible to the producers, but at the same time it is very competitive, with some brands ubiquitously known or well perceived across the Union;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1 c. Notes that the local producers have difficulties in partaking in the common market, which is due among other reasons to lack of sufficient resources or market access and serious competition on the market;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Stresses the urgent need to develop a common testing methodology; highlights the commitment that EU-wide testing results should be available by the end of this year; calls for stronger involvement of the Members of the European Parliament in the process;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the debate on dual quality within the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain; stresses the need to involve as many interested actors as possible;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Urges the EC to propose amendment to Article 6 of the Directive 2005/29/EC in particular by reference to the practice of selling the same product in the same packaging but with different ingredients and proportions under the list of the Misleading commercial practices;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 1
Subheading 1
Commission Notice and application of EU consumer protection law to issues of dual quality of products
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Takes note of the Commission Notice on the application of EU food and consumer laws to dual quality products; points out that this notice is intended to help national authorities to determine whether a company is breaking EU food and consumer laws when selling products of dual quality in different countries; points out that the Notice’s step-by-step approach for the identification by national authorities of whether producers are in breach of EU law currently seems inapplicable, in particular when national enforcers have to apply a case-by-case assessment of the likely impact of the practice on the average consumer's economic behaviour;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Urges the EC to propose amendment to the list of practices under Annex I of the Directive 2005/29/EC in particular by the inclusion of the practice of selling the same product in the same packaging but with different ingredients and proportions under the list of the Misleading commercial practices;
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Is concerned about territorial constraints for traders when purchasing goods; calls on the Commission to examine such cases to enable consumers to fully benefit from the single market;
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Notes that the local producers have difficulties in partaking in the common market, calls on the Commission to determine whether dual quality has negative repercussions for local and regional production;
Amendment 80 #
3. Considers that, until that practice is stopped, and in order to raise the profile of manufacturers’ initiatives on the use of local recipes, a system shcould be introduced for indicating, in a way that respects the consumer’s right of informed choice and consumer preferences, the local recipes used in the preparation of specific products;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. EDraws attention to the fact that according to Guidance on the application of UCPD from 2016: “goods of the same brand and having the same or similar packaging may differ as to their composition depending on the place of manufacture and the destination market, i.e. they may vary from one Member State to another. Under the UCPD, commercial practices marketing products with a different composition are not unfair per se”; emphasises the importance of the guidance documents issued by the Commission in facilitating proper and coherent application of the UCPD; calls, therefore, on the Commission to clarify the relationship between the Notice and, the guidance; and the paper drafted by the HLF Internal Market Subgroup;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Points out that setting of the so- called “product of reference” could impede the assessment as it might be difficult to determine which of the two (or more) products is the one from which all the others differ;
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Commends the initiative of those producers, which have announced they would amend their recipes;
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3 b. Urges the producers to relaunch brands in the whole Single market in order to guarantee its smooth functioning and not in a case-by-case principle;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Welcomes that the Commission invites competent authorities to perform market tests that involve product comparisons across different regions and countries; highlights, however, that according to the Commission, such tests should be carried out with a common testing approach which has not been adopted yet; Stresses the need to stick to the timetable so that the results of the testing carried out under a common testing approach are made available and analysed by end of this year;
Amendment 97 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for the establishment of an agency or other specialised unit to monitor consistency of composition and proportional use of ingredients in identically branded and packaged food products; considers it would be fitting for the agency or unit to be located in a country, such as Bulgaria, that had been affected by the unfair practice of dual product quality.
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Recalls that the European Parliament has repeatedly called on the Commission to determine whether a dual quality has negative repercussions for local and regional production, in particular SMEs; regrets that no data have been presented by the Commission so far;
Amendment 102 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Strongly condemns the argument that optimisation of composition and/or quality results from consumers' price expectations; highlights that various studies have shown that products of lower quality are often more expensive than their counterparts of higher quality elsewhere in the EU;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)
Paragraph 14 b (new)
14b. Underlines that counterfeiting of branded products exposes consumers to health and safety risks, undermines consumer confidence in the brands and leads to loss of revenue for producers; Notes that range of counterfeit products recovered in the EU remains broad and includes nearly all types of goods;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Is concerned about restrictions placed on traders when it comes to purchasing goods that may have a negative effect on consumer choice; urges the Commission to identify factors that contribute to a fragmentation of the single market in goods, in particular territorial supply constraints and their implication and restrict consumer's ability to benefit fully from the single market, in particular territorial supply constraints and their implications; calls on the Commission to pursue such cases, where it finds, or suspects, a breach of the competition rules;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Recalls that according to the Commission, studies made on brand loyalty demonstrate that brands act in the mind of consumers as a certificate for a controlled and constant quality; agrees with the Commission that this explains why some consumers may expect branded products to be of equivalent quality if not exactly the same wherever and whenever purchased and brand owners to inform them when they decide to change any important element of the composition of their products; considers therefore, that the provision of any additional information, although in the principal field of vision of a package, is insufficient unless the consumer clearly understands that the product in question differs from products of a same brand sold in another Member States;
Amendment 105 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls for the establishment of an agency or other specialised unitbody to monitor consistency of composition and proportional use of ingredients in identically branded and packaged food products.
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
15b. Takes note of the arguments that products may differ due to regional consumer preferences; Believes that consumer preferences should not be used as an excuse for lowering quality and/or offering different quality grades on different markets; stresses that consumers must be transparently informed and aware of this adjustment for each individual product and not only in general terms, that this "established practice" exists;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 c (new)
Paragraph 15 c (new)
15c. Strongly disagrees with arguments on the need to optimize composition and/or quality of branded products in order to meet consumers’ price expectations;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Points out that national competent authorities can select samples and perform tests only on the territory of their Member State; stresses the importance, therefore, of enhanced, effective and transparent cooperation between national consumer protection and food authorities and the Commission; welcomes the adoption of the revised Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation11that strengthens investigation and enforcement powers, improves information and data exchange and access to any relevant information and establishes harmonized rules setting out the procedures for the coordination of investigation and enforcement measures in this regard; _________________ 11 Regulation (EU) 2017/2394; OJ L 345, 27.12.2017, p. 1.
Amendment 113 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Is concerned that "no or slow action" from the side of the EU runs the risk of alienating the citizens from the EU by not taking concrete actions in short terms to tackle this issue.
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Recognises the usefulness of the sweeps as important form of enforcement coordination carried out under the CPC Regulation and calls on the Commission and Member States to further strengthen them and broaden their scope;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)
Paragraph 16 b (new)
16b. Is convinced, that in case a company intends to place on the market of different Member States product that differs in certain characteristics, such a product cannot be labelled and branded in a seemingly identical manner;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Emphasises the value of public debate that leads to increased consumer awareness about products and their characteristics; notes that some manufacturers and owners of private labels have already announced changes to recipes; highlights the role of industry in improving transparency with regard to product composition and quality and its changes;
Amendment 124 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines that national authorities are unable to tackle this issue individually, and calls therefore for a solution to be found at EU level; recalls that Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices (UCPD)3 is the main tool for protecting consumers from misleading and unfair practices; calls on the Commission to amendbelieves that amending the Annex I to the UCPD by adding the practice of dual quality to the blacklist. _________________ 3 is the most effective way to tackle cases of dual quality on the market; _________________ 3 OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22. OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22.
Amendment 132 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Highlights the need to have effective and comprehensive legislation with clear instructions on how to tackle the issue of dual quality;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Calls for the increased support of national consumer organizations, so they can build capacity, develop their testing activities and contribute, alongside with competent authorities, to tracking and exposing situations of unfair product differentiation;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Believes that the experiences of competent authorities thus far suggest that they have been unable individually to tackle effectively any specific cases of dual quality at national level, also due to absence of an explicit legal provision on EU level;
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls on the CommissionWelcomes the Commission proposal to amend Article 6 of the UCPD by adding the marketing of a product as being identical to the same product marketed in several other Member States but at the same time with different composition or characteristics as a misleading commercial practice; Stresses, however, that open list of so called “legitimate factors” could jeopardize competent authorities’ ability to undertake assessment and apply the law; Believes, therefore, tohat amendment to Annex I to the UCPD by introducing another item onto the ‘blacklist’ would address an unjustified cases of dual quality in the most effective way;
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Emphasises that the outcome of the legislative process should be a clear definition of what can be considered as dual quality and how each case should be assessed and addressed by competent authorities;