16 Amendments of Jordi CAÑAS related to 2020/0374(COD)
Amendment 199 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) To safeguard the fairness and contestability of core platform services provided by gatekeepers, it is necessary to provide in a clear and unambiguous manner for a set of harmonised obligations with regard to those services. Such rules are needed to address the risk of harmful effects of unfair practices imposed by gatekeepers, to the benefit of the business environment in the services concerned, to the benefit of users and ultimately to the benefit of society as a whole. Given the fast-moving and dynamic nature of digital markets, and the substantial economic power of gatekeepers, it is important that these obligations are effectively applied without being circumvented. To that end, the obligations in question should apply to any practices by a gatekeeper, irrespective of its form and irrespective of whether it is of a contractual, commercial, technical or any other nature, including through product design or by presenting end-user choices in a non-neutral manner, or by otherwise subverting or impairing user autonomy, decision-making, or choice via the structure, function or manner of operation of a user interface or a part thereof, insofar as a practice corresponds to the type of practice that is the subject of one of the obligations of this Regulation.
Amendment 255 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46
Recital 46
(46) A gatekeeper may use different means to favour its own services or products on its core platform service, to the detriment of the same or similar services that end users could obtain through third parties. This may for instance be the case where certain software applications or services are pre-installed by a gatekeeper. To enable end user choice, gatekeepers should not prevent end users and business users, including device manufacturers and device providers, from un- installing any pre-installed software applications on itstheir core platform service and thereby favour their own software applications.
Amendment 261 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 47
Recital 47
(47) The rules that the gatekeepers set for the distribution of software applications may in certain circumstances restrict the ability of business users and end users to install, set as defaults, and effectively use third party software applications or software application stores on operating systems or hardware of the relevant gatekeeper and restrict the ability of end users to access these software applications or software application stores outside the core platform services of that gatekeeper. Such restrictions may limit the ability of developers of software applications to use alternative distribution channels and the ability of end users to choose between different software applications from different distribution channels and should be prohibited as unfair and liable to weaken the contestability of core platform services. To ensure contestability, the gatekeeper should prompt the end user to decide whether the downloaded application or app store should become the default. In order to ensure that third party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper the gatekeeper concerned may implement proportionate technical or contractual measures to achieve that goal if the gatekeeper demonstrates that such measures are necessary and justified and that there are no less restrictive means to safeguard the integrity of the hardware or operating system.
Amendment 289 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 51
Recital 51
(51) Gatekeepers can hamper the ability of end users to access online content and services including software applications. Therefore, rules should be established to ensure that the rights of end users to access an open internet are not compromised by the conduct of gatekeepers. Gatekeepers can also technically limit the ability of end users to effectively switch between different Internet access service providers, in particular through their control over operating systems or hardware. This distorts the level playing field for Internet access services and ultimately harms end users. It should therefore be ensured that gatekeepers do not unduly restrict end users in choosing their Internet access service provider.
Amendment 366 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 75
Recital 75
(75) In the context of proceedings carried out under this Regulation, the undertakings concerned should be accorded the right to be heard by the Commission and the decisions taken should be widely publicised. While ensuring the rights to good administration and the rights of defence of the undertakings concerned, in particular, the right of access to the file and the right to be heard, it is essential that confidential information be protected. Furthermore, while respecting the confidentiality of the information, the Commission should ensure that any information relied on for the purpose of the decision is disclosed to an extent that allows the addressee of the decision to understand the facts and considerations that led up to the decision. Finally, under certain conditions certain business records, such as communication between lawyers and their clients, may be considered confidential if the relevant conditions are met. Natural or legal persons with sufficient interest should also have a right to be heard. Parties that are directly affected by the obligations contained in Articles 5 and 6 should be considered to have sufficient interest. Consumer associations that apply to be heard should be regarded as having a sufficient interest, where the proceedings concern products or services used by end users.
Amendment 370 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 75 a (new)
Recital 75 a (new)
(75 a) In addition, the Commission should keep the European Parliament fully and regularly informed of the proceedings carried out under this Regulation, with due regard to the principle of good administration and accountability, in order to ensure democratic scrutiny of the measures carried out by the Commission.
Amendment 576 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 8
Article 3 – paragraph 8
8. The gatekeeper shall comply with the obligations laid down in Articles 5 and 6, and notify the Commission of the terms of its compliance, within six months after a core platform service has been included in the list pursuant to paragraph 7 of this Article.
Amendment 725 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) allow end users and business users to un-install any pre-installed software applications on its core platform service without prejudice to the possibility for a gatekeeper to restrict such un-installation in relation to software applications that the gatekeeper can prove are essential for the functioning of the operating system or of the device and which cannot technically be offered on a standalone basis by third- parties;
Amendment 728 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) allow the installation, setting as default, by business users and end users, and effective use of third party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, operating systems of that gatekeeper and allow these software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall prompt the end user to decide whether the downloaded application or application store should become the default. The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking proportionate measures to ensure that third party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper where the gatekeeper can prove that such measures are necessary and justified and there are no less restrictive means to safeguard the integrity of the hardware or operating system;
Amendment 930 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. A gatekeeper shall ensure that the obligations of Articles 5 and 6 are fully and effectively complied with. While the obligations of Articles 5 and 6 apply in respect of core platform services designated pursuant to Article 3, their implementation shall not be undermined by any behaviour of the gatekeeper or any part of the undertaking to which the gatekeeper belongs, regardless of whether this behaviour is of a contractual, commercial, technical or any other nature, including through product design or by presenting end user choices in a non- neutral manner, or by otherwise subverting or impairing user autonomy, decision-making, or choice via the structure, function or manner of operation of a user interface or a part thereof.
Amendment 946 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Article 11 – paragraph 3
3. A gatekeeper shall not degrade the conditions or quality of any of the core platform services provided to business users or end users who avail themselves of the rights or choices laid down in Articles 5 and 6, or make the exercise of those rights or choices unduly difficult, including by presenting end-user choices in a non-neutral manner, or by otherwise subverting or impairing user autonomy, decision-making, or choice via the structure, function or manner of operation of a user interface or a part thereof.
Amendment 1091 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 25 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. In any non-compliance decision under paragraph 1 the Commission shall further be entitled to specify the measures the gatekeeper shall implement to ensure effective compliance with its obligations laid down in Articles 5 or 6. This may include any proportionate measures to restore the contestability of the market where this has been harmed by the gatekeeper’s non-compliance. The Commission shall, where appropriate, be entitled to require the measures to be tested to optimise their effectiveness;
Amendment 1124 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 30 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. If the Commission considers it necessary, it may also hear other natural or legal persons before taking the decisions as provided for in paragraph 1. Applications to be heard on the part of such persons shall, where they show a sufficient interest, be granted. Member State authorities assisting the Commission in the enforcement of this Regulation may also ask the Commission to hear other natural or legal persons with sufficient interest.
Amendment 1128 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 2
Article 30 – paragraph 2
2. Gatekeepers, undertakings and, associations of undertakings and interested third persons concerned may submit their observations to the Commission’s preliminary findings within a time limit which shall be fixed by the Commission in its preliminary findings and which may not be less than 14 days.
Amendment 1130 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 3
Article 30 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission shall base its decisions only on objections on which gatekeepers, undertakings and, associations of undertakings concerned and interested third persons have been able to comment.
Amendment 1131 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 30 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Natural or legal persons who can show a legitimate interest shall be entitled to lodge complaints with regard to the non-designation of gatekeepers and non- compliance and systematic non- compliance by gatekeepers with their obligations under this Regulation.