Activities of Carmen AVRAM related to 2020/2223(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Competition policy – annual report 2020 (debate)
Amendments (51)
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas EU competition policy is designed to maintain an open market economy with free, fair and effective competition favouring an efficient allocation of resourcesmust benefit all EU citizens, while promoting innovation and fair competition in the single market, paying particular attention to the SMEs and a level playing field;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
B a. whereas exceptional and temporary measures to respond to the pandemic should not be applied in disguise of anticompetitive behaviour, nor be exploited by financially already unhealthy companies to receive additional aid without the necessary and effective restructuring plans and whereas all aid should be designed and granted in an economically and socially responsible manner; whereas in the long run, companies should commit to resume their contribution to sustainable development goals for social, economic and environmental wellbeing and for the fight against climate change;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
B b. whereas competition policy should address efficiently social, digital and environmental challenges, and must be in line with the priorities outlined in the European Green Deal and the objectives of the Paris Agreement;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B c (new)
Recital B c (new)
B c. whereas the rapid emergence and evolution of digital markets poses new challenges to the effectiveness of competition policy, especially in the field of antitrust rules where so far, ex ante interventions are not allowed;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B d (new)
Recital B d (new)
B d. whereas data scandals, investigations and evidence have shown how personal date is being collected and stored often in an excessive data storage manner, as well as used and sold to third parties by platforms and how dominant technology players and platforms have been tracking consumers online systematically;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas smart reconciliation of the Union’s competition rules with its industrial and international trade policies is essential for re-shoring value chaaching the objectives under the European Green Deal and the Pillar of Social Rights while securing activities and bolstering global competitiveness; nd creating decent jobs in the EU and third countries; whereas the Commission is currently carrying out a general review of competition policy enforcement effectiveness including antitrust regulations, a number of State aid rules and guidance, and the evaluation of merger control rules and the review of the Merger Definition Notice;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
D a. whereas given that recent data scandals, investigations and evidence have shown how personal data is being collected, used and sold to third parties by platforms and how dominant technology players and platforms have been tracking consumers online systematically;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes that a strict and impartial enforcement of EU competition rules by independent competition authorities can make a significant contribution to key political priorities, such as social inequalities or the climate crisis; emphasises itshowever the importance alsoof flexibility in crisis conditions;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Is concerned with the rapid evolvement of the digital markets and that existing competition policy instruments cannot always provide for quick and efficient ex-ante detection and timely intervention, especially in antitrust-cases; welcomes in this regard the Commission proposal on DSA and DMA, and looks forward to further analysis on how competition policy and market monitoring tools can be adapted to the digital markets evolution;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the adoption of a Temporary Framework for State aid measures established in response to the COVID-19 crisis and supports its application for as long as the recovery is ongoing;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Highlights the importance of policy coherence and for any aid granted to be issued only to companies enduring direct financial consequences of the pandemic; urges furthermore that companies using tax havens outside the EU for tax avoidance to be banned from accessing State Aid or financial support if they do not commit to changing their behaviour;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. Recalls that recapitalisation, even under the temporary framework, should be considered only as the last resort solution by Member States, given the potential major distortive impact recapitalisation measures can have on the single market; is of the opinion that recapitalisation measures or any other public financial support to companies should be conditional upon the funding being used to benefit employees and that the recipient companies should refrain from bonuses to the management, paying out dividends or offering share buy-back schemes for as long as they receive such support;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Stresses that EU aid measures in response to theCOVID-19 crisis, including through the Recovery and Resilience Facility, should not be given to companies that were inefficient and structurally loss making before the Covid- 19 crisis, or favour monopolistic undertakings, notably in critical sectors and which have not committed to a change of behaviour or planned/performed the necessary structural reforms;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Given the Covid19 economic crisis and the realisation of the existential role of European farmers for our food supply and agriculture sovereignty; calls on the Commission to pay particular attention to any third country anti-competitive practices that risk penalising our agriculture sector and penalise our farmers; the same rules and standards should be requested from third countries when importing agriculture products;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Emphasises the importance of global dialogue and cooperation on competition policy enforcement and a common approach towards fair competition;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9 b. Calls for the EU and the UK to find common ground to continuously cooperate and strive towards fair competition and a level playing field;
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Supports the inclusion in EU competition rules of a thorough State aid check on undertakings from third countries, while stressing that the Union should remain open to foreign direct investments complying with its legal framework and not distorting competition;
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. Highlights the importance of a European competition policy design fit to tackle new challenges linked to the use of data, algorithms and fast-moving markets in an increasingly digital environment, as well as strengthening cooperation networks between Member States' authorities and the Commission to support fair competition in the single market;
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. Regrets the slowness of some antitrust investigations compared to the fast-moving digital markets; underlines that the Google Shopping case started on the 30th November 20101a, stresses the damaging effect resulting from this situation and the financial consequences to which some actors have and are being exposed; _________________ 1a https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/is ef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=1_39740
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
15 b. Regrets that ten years after the opening of an investigation into Google search bias practices, the European Commission has still not completed the investigation; notes that antitrust enforcement actions in the United States of America by the Department of Justice and the Attorney Generals capture a wide range of Google's anti-competitive practices; deplores the limited scope of EU enforcement action which fails to protect European consumers; notes that the remedies proposed by Google have been rejected as inefficient by market players and consumer organisations across Europe; calls on the European Commission to file antitrust charges against Google for abuse of dominance in other specialised search services, including local search;
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Considers, while acknowledging efforts made, that problems linked to large technology undertakings’ excessive market dominance have so far been insufficiently addressed and need to be resolved urgently; welcomes in that context the Commission's proposals for a Digital Services Act and a Digital Markets Act;
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Looks forward to seeing how the DMA and DSA will resolve in practice the structuring of big platforms and ensure adequate market oversight enabling intervention before a dominant position is established;
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Takes the view that new competition tools might be needed to deal with structural competition problems across digital markets which current rules cannot address in the most effective manner and calls for careful Commission surveillance on these markets so as to be able to act fast on major issues and legal loopholes;
Amendment 221 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls on the Commission to consider proposals to prohibit platforms from engaging in self-preferencing or operating in lines of business that depend on or interoperate with the platform, as well as to require platforms to make their services compatible with competing networks to allow for interoperability and data portability; moreover, the toolbox of the Commission as future DMA regulator should include the ability to ban abusive self-preferencing practices in the form of default settings; the Commission should have the ability to force a gatekeeping platform to substitute certain default settings by an effective and objective consumer choice architecture;
Amendment 222 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18 a. Recalls that data driven advantages linked to data sharing and data selling, but also services set as default settings risk conferring some companies the position of a so-called “gatekeeper” in the digital markets and need to be addressed effectively by the DMA and DSA;
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Considers that the structural unbundling of Big Tech monopolies is desirable for restoring competition in digital markets given the limits of fines and the failure of passed behavioural remedies in certain antitrust cases;
Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Looks forward toWelcomes the Commissionʼs proposals for a Digital Services Act and a Digital Markets Act; the objective of these proposals is to ensure fair and contestable digital markets in the EU; this objective is complementary but distinct from the goal pursued by competition law, namely the protection of undistorted competition on the market and a level playing field; notes that the first enforcement action under the new DMA Regulation will only be possible in five years; therefore urges the European Commission to pursue its antitrust enforcement in new and pending cases involving gatekeepers in the digital environment;
Amendment 240 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)
Paragraph 20 a (new)
20 a. Insists on the enforcement framework in the DMA; as regulator, the Commission should be sufficiently resourced and the process should be participatory among all actors; the identification of remedies should not be left to the sole appreciation of the incriminated company but instead be subject to a strict compliance mechanism;
Amendment 242 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 b (new)
Paragraph 20 b (new)
20 b. Calls on the Commission make full use of its competition policy instruments to guarantee a fair level playing field and by addressing potential gatekeeper effects with regards to access to key enabling technologies for artificial intelligence and data;
Amendment 250 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21 a. Further encourages the structured dialogues with the Executive Vice- President for Competition and the efforts by the Commission to maintain close co- operation with the members of Parliament’s competent committee; considers the Commission’s annual report on competition policy an indispensable exercise in terms of democratic scrutiny; recalls that in recent years Parliament has been involved through the ordinary legislative procedure in shaping the framework for competition rules; notes that Parliament should begiven co- decision powers to shape the framework for competition rules; recalls its previous request to amend the treaties accordingly;
Amendment 254 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22 a. Calls on the Commission to review its merger and acquisition rules when it comes to assessing personal data; calls, in particular, on the Commission to fully consider and assess personal data assets as all other traditional physical assets when it decides on digital mergers and acquisitions; invites the Commission to learn from recent mergers such as Facebook and WhatsApp or Google and Fitbit acquisitions;
Amendment 256 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 b (new)
Paragraph 22 b (new)
22 b. Regrets the European Commission's decision to approve Google’s takeover of wearable fitness device company Fitbit; notes that the remedies proposed by Google and endorsed by the European Commission are insufficient to ensure effective competition in wearables and digital health, which are becoming increasingly important in consumers’ lives; urges the European Commission to take a broader view when evaluating digital mergers and assess the impact of data consolidation; notes that the acquisition of targets with specific data resources can bring about a concentration in control over valuable and non-replicable data resources and result in better data access for the merging parties than for their competitors; stresses that data consolidation via mergers may strengthen a dominant position or allow the acquiring entity to leverage market power, and sometimes raise foreclosure concerns;
Amendment 258 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 c (new)
Paragraph 22 c (new)
22 c. Calls on the Commission to update its antitrust tools especially on merger control and adequate them to new realities of digital and technology markets and to change the assessment of market power, merger notification thresholds, measurement of merger effects on consumer privacy, industrial data and investigation of abuse of dominant position;
Amendment 259 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 d (new)
Paragraph 22 d (new)
22 d. Calls on the Commission to investigate the advertising technology at the heart of big tech companies business model, in particular asks the Commission to look into how Google and Facebook are collecting, accessing, processing, using and monetising personal data. Moreover, calls the Commission to investigate Google’s practices in the advertising technology (“ad tech”) value chain, and its position in relation to advertisers, publishers and intermediaries, and competitors in search advertising, display advertising and ad tech services;
Amendment 268 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25 a. Recalls, with view to its report on competition policy 2019 (2019/2131 (INI))2a that abuse of market power can take place even when products or services are supplied for free or in exchange of private data; believes that the passing on of private data to third parties for marketing or commercial purposes is frequently done without the consumer’s proper consent, as alternatives to sharing data are often not provided; considers that in the digital economy, the concentration of data in a small number of companies leads to market failures, excessive rent extraction and a blocking of new entrants; _________________ 2a https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/doc ument/A-9-2020-0022_EN.html
Amendment 296 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27 a. Reiterates that taxation is sometimes used to grant indirect State aid, creating an uneven playing field in the internal market; deplores the abuse of tax rulings, points out that royalties as a financial product do not only risk to facilitate money laundering but also to undermine competition in the single market; recalls that aggressive tax planning does not solely harm fair competition but also undermines the proper functioning of social systems in general; insists that the Commission has access to the information exchanged between the Member States’ tax authorities so as to better detect violations of competition rules; recalls that examination by the Commission of a tax ruling under a State aid point of view does not constitute tax harmonisation;
Amendment 305 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)
Paragraph 28 a (new)
28 a. Welcomes the Commission repeal of the Apple ruling; Is of the opinion that the Apple case shows once more the need for sound state aid rules, taking into account beneficial tax regimes; repeats its call for a minimum effective tax rate and a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) and public country-by- country reporting (pCBCR); awaits the results of the ongoing international negotiations on a digital tax;
Amendment 319 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
Paragraph 30 a (new)
30 a. Considers in particular antitrust proceedings as too lengthy, slowing down much needed market corrections and consequently negatively impacting effectiveness of competition law enforcement, especially in the case of rapidly growing digital markets; calls therefore for faster antitrust proceedings and asks for cooperation on this not only from the Commission but also from the companies under investigation; condemns in that context that some companies under investigation artificially prolong investigations by systematically requesting prolongations of deadlines and by replying to requests for information only with substantial delays or by submitting ineffective proposals for commitments they would take;
Amendment 321 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 b (new)
Paragraph 30 b (new)
30 b. Welcomes the introduction of the “eLeniencytool” by the Commission to further improve the effectiveness of competition policies implementation; recalls that with the swift development of the digital markets, new challenges arise when it comes to the implementation of competition policies; recommends in that sense the Commission to look into the possibilities to intervene ex ante, especially in the digital markets and to provide EU and national competition and regulatory authorities with the necessary means to gather data anonymously so as to be able to better detect market failures in due time;
Amendment 327 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 a (new)
Paragraph 31 a (new)
31 a. Points out that while the level of fines imposed by the Commission is amongst the highest in the world, nearly two-thirds of the fines imposed by the Commission in cartel cases since 2006 stayed below 0.99% of global annual turnover, thus well below the ceiling of 10% of a company’s annual worldwide turnover allowed3a; notes that while the ECA rightly points out that the amount of fines alone does not allow conclusions on whether they are effective deterrents, the ECA also underlines that the ceiling itself of possible fines can limit the deterrent effect in “serious cases”; _________________ 3a https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADoc uments/SR20_24/SR_Competition_policy _EN.pdf
Amendment 329 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31 b (new)
Paragraph 31 b (new)
31 b. Recalls that even when heavy fines are imposed they are often not enough of a deterrent, also because they may be passed on to consumers; calls therefore on the Commission to evaluate the deterrence effect of its fines and the usefulness of fines of up to 40% of the worldwide annual turnover of companies to be imposed in serious cartel cases, as it is the case already in one Member State; urges moreover that non-compliance for recurrent infringers should lead to additional sanctions, such as alternative behavioural remedies or the obligation to take specific structural measures which could be a combination of recommendations from the Commission; stresses that the cease-and-desist order should be much more prescriptive in upcoming remedies;
Amendment 334 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Suggests looking into ‘killer acquisition’ practices that could jeopardise innovation; calls the Commission to review its thresholds rules in digital mergers and acquisition; moreover, when assessing personal data; calls on the Commission to fully consider and assess personal data assets as all other traditional assets when it decides on acquisitions; invites the Commission to learn from past controversial acquisitions decisions such as Facebook/WhatsApp or Google/Fitbit deals;
Amendment 338 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)
Paragraph 32 a (new)
32 a. Highlights the possibility of using interim measures to stop any practice that would seriously harm competition and welcomes the Commission’s first use of interim measures in the Broadcom-case; is nonetheless of the opinion that there remains a need to relax the criteria for interim measures in order to avoid any irreversible damage;
Amendment 341 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)
Paragraph 32 a (new)
32 a. Welcomes Directive(EU) 2019/633 17 April 2019 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain, recalls that is an important first step in ensuring fairness between operators, combating dual standards in agri-food practices and in addressing the imbalance of the bargaining power within the food supply chain; stresses the need for the Commission to monitor the progress of transposition closely and to promote the sharing of best practices between Member States; encourages Member States to list further unfair practices as prohibited and set higher standards;
Amendment 342 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 b (new)
Paragraph 32 b (new)
32 b. Regrets the fact that selling at a loss is not prohibited at EU level; highlights the important contribution made by primary producers in supplying high-quality food and delivering public goods to society; calls on the Commission to guarantee fair competition and greater transparency in offline platforms’ commercial practices, including supermarket and hypermarkets, so as to ensure that EU producers receive fair conditions and prices for their products;
Amendment 345 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 b (new)
Paragraph 32 b (new)
32 b. With regards the food sector; calls on the Commission to guarantee fair competition and greater transparency in supermarket and hypermarkets chains commercial practices; European farmers should receive a fair price for their products; stresses the need for the Commission to look at hypermarkets powers in the distribution chain and commercial practices in placing competing products, including their own, on the shelves;
Amendment 349 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 c (new)
Paragraph 32 c (new)
32 c. Calls on the Commission to devote special attention to supermarkets, hypermarkets and retail alliances’ bargaining powers with their clients and suppliers; notes that in some Member States supermarkets, hypermarkets and retail alliances’ sovereignty affects brand value and product choice, cuts corners on their own brands quality, limits innovation and price comparability, thus distorting price architectures;
Amendment 352 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 d (new)
Paragraph 32 d (new)
32 d. Calls on the Commission to make it compulsory for banks receiving State aid to retain their full retail banking/consumer banking services and to ensure that banks are not allowed to use the COVID-19 crisis as a pretext for permanently reducing such services; Calls the Commission to have a close look at cases in the banking sector in certain Member States where consumers currently face higher interest rates and a lack of transparency when it comes to loans, potentially due to concentration of ownership in the banking sector, which could lead to deceptive selling practices of mortgages; Calls the Commission to have a close look at the banking sector in Romania where consumers face high interest rates and lack of transparency when it comes to loans because of potential bank cartels tendencies when it comes to deceptive selling practices of credit;