Activities of Marian HARKIN related to 2016/0402(COD)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the legal and operational framework of the European services e-card introduced by Regulation ....[ESC regulation]....
Amendments (79)
Amendment 5 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) Directive 2006/123/EC requires Member States to put in place and keep constantly updated Points of Single Contacts where a service provider wishing to establish or to provide services can find all relevant information about requirements to be complied with and e-procedures in respect of all formalities, authorisation and notifications to go through. The Points of Single Contacts need to be upgraded in line with the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing a single digital gateway to provide information, procedures, assistance and problem solving services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/20121a. However, costly information challenges and difficulties complying with national procedures at a distance remain to date for service providers, namely for sector-related requirements. Cooperation between authorities in different Member States should in principle take place via the Internal Market Information System (IMI), an IT-platform offered for cross-border exchange of information and mutual assistance under that Directive. Despite the fact that authorities sometimes have doubts with regard to the legal establishment of a provider in another Member State, the possibilities for cooperation currently provided in IMI are not exploited to their full potential. Formalities associated with authorisations and notifications often require paper documents to be submitted and to be translated at a significant cost. Information regarding these obstacles is either not available online or is scarce, incomplete, dispersed and difficult to interpret in relation to the particular circumstances of a provider expanding across borders, as national rules often target purely domestic situations. Service providers often risk resubmitting information and documents.
Amendment 7 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Requirements remain in place which can make expansion of service providers' operations across the internal market burdensome and unappealing, such as multiple and disparate authorisation schemes before different authorities, 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 sometimes apply disproportionate or unjustified restrictions. As a consequence, service providers can sometimes face multiple and disproportionate compliance costs when going cross-border.
Amendment 9 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Cross-border trade and cross-border investment in certain business and construction services are particularly low showing a potential for better integration of services markets with significant negative repercussions for the remaining part of the economy. This underperformance leads to situations where the potential for more growth and jobs in the Single Market has not been fully exploited.
Amendment 11 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) In order to make it easier to take up and pursue service activities, this Directive builds upon Directive 2006/123/EC but does in no way amend its rules. The scope of this Directive is even more limited compared to the scope laid down in the Services Directive. It specifically targets business and construction service sectors, where many obstacles to cross-border activities still remain. In addition, cross- border trade and investment in construction and several business services are low and both sectors have seen weak productivity growth over the last decade.
Amendment 12 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) A European services e-card provides several advantages. It offers a proof of legal establishment in the home Member State. As long as a European services e-card remains valid, it should constitute a valid means of proof throughout the EU of legal establishment in the home Member State for the services covered by that e-card. Such proof should even be accepted in a domestic context, across all levels and administrative divisions of public administration. A valid European services e-card includes information which is often required in different contexts, such as controls applicable during or after the performance of services, the award of a public contract, a design contest or a concession, formation of subsidiaries or registration of branches under company law and registration of the service provider with mandatory social insurance schemes. Since that information is already available in a valid European services e-card, Member State authorities should not request this information from e- card holders for these other purposes.
Amendment 14 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) In addition, Member States should not be allowed to impose on holders of a European services e-card any service provision related authorisation or notification schemes prior to a service provision. Member States should not repeat, wholly or partially, controls previously performed in the context of issuing the European services e-card once provision of services has started in the host Member State. Authorisation or notification schemes such as those deriving from taxation, social security and labour law shall remain applicable as such matters are excluded from the scope of this Directive. Ex-post checks, inspections and investigations initiated by competent authorities should however remain admissible to control service performance, as under current EU Law. If such controls reveal serious breaches of requirements applicable in a host Member State, this cshould lead to the suspension or revocation of the European services e-card.
Amendment 16 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) There are two types of European services e-cards offered to service providers: a simpler procedure for temporary cross-border provision of services into other Member States, essentially controlling their previous establishment in the home Member State and allowing a host Member State to object to temporary provision of cross-border services only due to overriding reasons of public interests, and a more complex one, framing the control by host Member States of an economic activity in their territory for an indefinite periodfour years through secondary establishment in the form of branches, agencies or offices, in order to ensure, in a simplified workflow, mutual recognition is performed properly and expeditiously.
Amendment 19 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) The coordinating authority of the home Member State should, upon receiving an application for a European services e-card, complete it and validate its contents in order to accurately demonstrate legal establishment of the provider in its home Member State and describe its circumstances in a manner conducive for host Member State's authorities to pursue their own controls. While inaction on the part of the applicant should lead to a halt in the procedure, inaction on the part of the home Member State's authorities should give way to judicial redress.
Amendment 20 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) For provision of temporary cross- border services, given that Article 16 of Directive 2006/123/EC admits requirements for the generality of services covered by this Directive, host Member States should be allowed to object to the issue of a European services e-card by the home Member State in those cases where the circumstances of the applicant give rise to genuine and sufficiently serious threats to public interests related to public policy, public security, public health or the protection of the environment, in a manner which cannot be suitably and sufficiently addressed by requirements and controls applicable once service provision starts. This should be the case when a prior authorisation scheme or prior notification for temporary provision of the services in question is in place, justified in proportionate terms under one of those four overriding reasons of public interest safeguarded under Article 16 of Directive 2006/123/EC and when the conditions met by the applicant in its home Member State cannot be considered equivalent to the ones required in the host Member State for the granting of that prior authorisation. The possibilities and prerogatives of host Member States under Article 16 of Directive 2006/123/EC apply in the context of issuing a European services e-card.
Amendment 20 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) Directive 2006/123/EC requires Member States to put in place and keep constantly updated Points of Single Contacts where a service provider wishing to establish or to provide services can find all relevant information about requirements to be complied with and e-procedures in respect of all formalities, authorisation and notifications to go through. The Points of Single Contacts need to be upgraded in line with the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing a single digital gateway to provide information, procedures, assistance and problem solving services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/20121a . However, costly information challenges and difficulties complying with national procedures at a distance remain to date for service providers, namely for sector-related requirements. Cooperation between authorities in different Member States should in principle take place via the Internal Market Information System (IMI), an IT-platform offered for cross-border exchange of information and mutual assistance under that Directive. Despite the fact that authorities sometimes have doubts with regard to the legal establishment of a provider in another Member State, the possibilities for cooperation currently provided in IMI are not exploited to their full potential. Formalities associated with authorisations and notifications often require paper documents to be submitted and to be translated at a significant cost. Information regarding these obstacles is either not available online or is scarce, incomplete, dispersed and difficult to interpret in relation to the particular circumstances of a provider expanding across borders, as national rules often target purely domestic situations. Service providers often risk resubmitting information and documents.
Amendment 21 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) Host Member States should be allowed to request clarifications or additional information from the home Member State before the issue of a European services e-card, essentially relevant for the assessment of whether there is a justified and proportionate need to object to temporary provision of services by the applicant in its territory or, for establishment, to assess just how many of its regulatory concerns are already suitably addressed by compliance of the applicant with home Member State's requirements. Over time, it is expected that Member States will gain a better knowledge of their respective regulatory frameworks in the sectors covered by the e-card that should lead to enhanced mutual trust and thus allow for a more expedient assessment to the benefit of applicants.
Amendment 22 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
Amendment 22 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Requirements remain in place which can make expansion of service providers' operations across the internal market burdensome and unappealing, such as multiple and disparate authorisation schemes before different authorities, 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 sometimes apply disproportionate or unjustified restrictions. As a consequence, service providers can sometimes face multiple and disproportionate compliance costs when going cross-border.
Amendment 23 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) Relevant actions and decisions of the coordinating authorities involved in the procedure for issuing the European services e-card, in the host as well as in the home Member State should be subject to judicial remedies in accordance with national law. This should include appropriate remedies in the event of failure to act of the coordinating authority in the home Member State in accordance with the procedure to issue the e-card.
Amendment 23 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Cross-border trade and cross-border investment in certain business and construction services are particularly low showing a potential for better integration of services markets with significant negative repercussions for the remaining part of the economy. This underperformance leads to situations where the potential for more growth and jobs in the Single Market has not been fully exploited.
Amendment 24 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) In order to make it easier to take up and pursue service activities, this Directive builds upon Directive 2006/123/EC but does in no way amend its rules. The scope of this Directive is even more limited compared to the scope laid down in the Services Directive. It specifically targets business and construction service sectors, where many obstacles to cross-border activities still remain. In addition, cross- border trade and investment in construction and several business services are low and both sectors have seen weak productivity growth over the last decade.
Amendment 26 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) Prior to the issuance of the European services e-card, a host Member State should be allowed to invoke legitimate policy concerns. Nevertheless, in the interest of allowing for a simplified and swift procedure, the principle of tacit approval should be observed in issuing a European services e-card. That is the general principle introduced under Directive 2006/123/EC. An alert of impending tacit approval and the extension of the applicable deadlines by twofour additional weeks should ensure that the host Member State has the appropriate time and means to consider applications for a European services e-card. A lack of information from the host Member State on applicable requirements should also not impede automatic issue of a European services e-card.
Amendment 28 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38
Recital 38
Amendment 29 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 41
Recital 41
Amendment 29 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) A European services e-card provides several advantages. It offers a proof of legal establishment in the home Member State. As long as a European services e-card remains valid, it should constitute a valid means of proof throughout the EU of legal establishment in the home Member State for the services covered by that e-card. Such proof should even be accepted in a domestic context, across all levels and administrative divisions of public administration. A valid European services e-card includes information which is often required in different contexts, such as controls applicable during or after the performance of services, the award of a public contract, a design contest or a concession, formation of subsidiaries or registration of branches under company law and registration of the service provider with mandatory social insurance schemes. Since that information is already available in a valid European services e-card, Member State authorities should not request this information from e- card holders for these other purposes.
Amendment 31 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) In addition, Member States should not be allowed to impose on holders of a European services e-card any service provision related authorisation or notification schemes prior to a service provision. Member States should not repeat, wholly or partially, controls previously performed in the context of issuing the European services e-card once provision of services has started in the host Member State. Authorisation or notification schemes such as those deriving from taxation, social security and labour law shall remain applicable as such matters are excluded from the scope of this Directive. Ex-post checks, inspections and investigations initiated by competent authorities should however remain admissible to control service performance, as under current EU Law. If such controls reveal serious breaches of requirements applicable in a host Member State, this cshould lead to the suspension or revocation of the European services e-card.
Amendment 33 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 42
Recital 42
(42) A European services e-card should be valid for an indefinite period in time, two year period, without prejudice to, in relation to temporary cross- border services, the effects of case-by-case derogations in accordance with Directive 2006/123/EC.
Amendment 34 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 43
Recital 43
(43) A European services e-card should however be suspended by the issuing coordinating authority if, temporarily, the service provider is banned from providing the services in question. The suspension should last as long as the ban is in place. A European services e-card should be revoked by the issuing coordinating authority if the conditions for issuing it or for it to remain valid, as a testament of legality of service provision in the host Member State, are no longer met. A final decision establishing that an e-card holder misrepresented him or herself as a service provider and that, under national law of either home or host Member State he or she is considered to be a worker, should lead to the revocation of the European services e-cards in question. Similarly, cases of fraudulent, inaccurate or falsified information or documents used in the context of issuing a European services e- card should impact the validityresult in the suspension or revocation of the e- card.
Amendment 34 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) There are two types of European services e-cards offered to service providers: a simpler procedure for temporary cross-border provision of services into other Member States, essentially controlling their previous establishment in the home Member State and allowing a host Member State to object to temporary provision of cross-border services only due to overriding reasons of public interests, and a more complex one, framing the control by host Member States of an economic activity in their territory for an indefinite period through secondary establishment in the form of branches, agencies or offices, in order to ensure, in a simplified workflow, mutual recognition is performed properly and expeditiously.
Amendment 35 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) The coordinating authority of the home Member State should, upon receiving an application for a European services e-card, complete it and validate its contents in order to accurately demonstrate legal establishment of the provider in its home Member State and describe its circumstances in a manner conducive for host Member State's authorities to pursue their own controls. While inaction on the part of the applicant should lead to a halt in the procedure, inaction on the part of the home Member State's authorities should give way to judicial redress.
Amendment 41 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) For provision of temporary cross- border services, given that Article 16 of Directive 2006/123/EC admits requirements for the generality of services covered by this Directive, host Member States should be allowed to object to the issue of a European services e-card by the home Member State in those cases where the circumstances of the applicant give rise to genuine and sufficiently serious threats to public interests related to public policy, public security, public health or the protection of the environment, in a manner which cannot be suitably and sufficiently addressed by requirements and controls applicable once service provision starts. This should be the case when a prior authorisation scheme or prior notification for temporary provision of the services in question is in place, justified in proportionate terms under one of those four overriding reasons of public interest safeguarded under Article 16 of Directive 2006/123/EC and when the conditions met by the applicant in its home Member State cannot be considered equivalent to the ones required in the host Member State for the granting of that prior authorisation. The possibilities and prerrogatives of host Member States under Article 16 of Directive 2006/123/EC apply in the context of issuing a European services e-card.
Amendment 43 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5
Article 5
Amendment 44 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) Host Member States should be allowed to request clarifications or additional information from the home Member State before the issue of a European services e-card, essentially relevant for the assessment of whether there is a justified and proportionate need to object to temporary provision of services by the applicant in its territory or, for establishment, to assess just how many of its regulatory concerns are already suitably addressed by compliance of the applicant with home Member State's requirements. Over time, it is expected that Member States will gain a better knowledge of their respective regulatory frameworks in the sectors covered by the e-card that should lead to enhanced mutual trust and thus allow for a more expedient assessment to the benefit of applicants.
Amendment 45 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
Amendment 48 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) Relevant actions and decisions of the coordinating authorities involved in the procedure for issuing the European services e-card, in the host as well as in the home Member State should be subject to judicial remedies in accordance with national law. This should include appropriate remedies in the event of failure to act of the coordinating authority in the home Member State in accordance with the procedure to issue the e-card.
Amendment 50 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
A European services e-card shall be valid for an indefinite duration period of 4 years and can be renewed using the procedure as in the directive, unless suspended, revoked or cancelled, in accordance with Articles 15 to 17.
Amendment 50 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) Prior to the issuance of the European services e-card, a host Member State should be allowed to invoke legitimate policy concerns. Nevertheless, in the interest of allowing for a simplified and swift procedure, the principle of tacit approval should be observed in issuing a European services e-card. That is the general principle introduced under Directive 2006/123/EC. An alert of impending tacit approval and the extension of the applicable deadlines by twofour additional weeks should ensure that the host Member State has the appropriate time and means to consider applications for a European services e-card. A lack of information from the host Member State on applicable requirements should also not impede automatic issue of a European services e-card.
Amendment 52 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38
Recital 38
Amendment 55 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
The coordinating authority of the home Member State shall within onefour weeks of having received an application for a European services e-card:
Amendment 56 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 41
Recital 41
Amendment 59 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) verify the completeness and, accuracy and validity of the information provided;
Amendment 61 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d
(d) verify that the applicant is legally established in its territory and verify the content, and validity of accompanying documents, if any, that prove compliance with requirements applicable to the service provision to which the applicant is subject in the home Member State;
Amendment 62 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 42
Recital 42
(42) A European services e-card should be valid for an indefinite period in time two year period, without prejudice to, in relation to temporary cross- border services, the effects of case-by-case derogations in accordance with Directive 2006/123/EC.
Amendment 63 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Where the coordinating authority of the home Member State requests supplementing of the application fromary information from the applicant, or, where, in the event of duly justified doubts, the host Member State requests re-verification of the validity of information submitted by the applicant, the time-limit is suspended until that information is provided.
Amendment 68 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 69 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 43
Recital 43
(43) A European services e-card should however be suspended by the issuing coordinating authority if, temporarily, the service provider is banned from providing the services in question. The suspension should last as long as the ban is in place. A European services e-card should be revoked by the issuing coordinating authority if the conditions for issuing it or for it to remain valid, as a testament of legality of service provision in the host Member State, are no longer met. A final decision establishing that an e-card holder misrepresented him or herself as a service provider and that, under national law of either home or host Member State he or she is considered to be a worker, should lead to the revocation of the European services e-cards in question. Similarly, cases of fraudulent, inaccurate or falsified information or documents used in the context of issuing a European services e- card should impact the validityresult in the suspension or revocation of the e- card.
Amendment 72 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. Taking into account the rights of Member States as referred to in Article 10, if the coordinating authority of the host Member State does not react within the time-limit referred to in paragraph 1, that time limit shall automatically be extended by two additional weeks and the electronic platform where the application for a European services e-card has been submitted shall issue an alert to the coordinating authority of the host Member State to the effect that failure to react shall imply that there is no objection to the issue of the European services e-card to the applicant.
Amendment 74 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
If the host Member State does not object in accordance with paragraph 1, the coordinating authority of the home Member State shall issue the European services e-card without delay upon expiration of the extended time-limit resulting from the application of paragraph 2. In the absence of any objection under the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 and failing a decision by the coordinating authority of the home Member State upon expiration of the extended time-limit resulting from the application of paragraph 2, the European services e- card shall be deemed to have been issued by the home Member State in the terms communicated to the host Member State in accordance with Article 11(2).
Amendment 77 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5
Article 5
Amendment 80 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
In the context of a procedure for issuing a European services e-card for establishment in the form of a branch, agency or office, the coordinating authority of the host Member State shall, within foursix weeks from receiving the application, identify which, if any, prior authorisation scheme or prior notification scheme as referred to in Article 5(2) is applicable, in compliance with EU law, to such establishment. If such a prior authorisation scheme or prior notification scheme has been identified, the host Member State shall also identify the conditions which the applicant is required to comply with, with the exception of those referred to in Article 5(5). The host Member State shall indicate why the application of such a prior authorisation scheme or prior notification scheme is necessary and proportionate for the pursuance of overriding reasons of public interest.
Amendment 87 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Alternatively, the coordinating authority of the host Member State may inform the applicant and the coordinating authority of the home Member State of its intention to reject the application, in which case the applicant shall have afour weeks to present its observations.
Amendment 92 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 4
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 4
Upon receipt of the observations of the applicant or, where no observations have been made, upon expiration of the time- limit to present those observations, the coordinating authority of the host Member State shall decide, within onefour weeks, whether to issue the European services e- card or reject the application for the European services e-card.
Amendment 96 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 6
Article 13 – paragraph 6
Amendment 99 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 7
Article 13 – paragraph 7
7. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 18 in order to specify the procedure for the coordinating authority of the host Member State to request clarifications or additional information from the home Member State as referred to in paragraph 5, and to modifyextend if necessary the time-limits mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 4.
Amendment 100 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 10 – subparagraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 10 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 101 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 10 – subparagraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 10 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 101 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
A European services e-card shall be valid for an indefinite duration period of 4 years and can be renewed using the procedure as in the directive, unless suspended, revoked or cancelled, in accordance with Articles 15 to 17.
Amendment 102 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Amendment 105 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 4 – point b
Article 17 – paragraph 4 – point b
(b) permanent or temporary cessation of activities covered by the European services e-card in the territory of the home Member State;
Amendment 106 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 4 – point e
Article 17 – paragraph 4 – point e
(e) any significant change as regards the requirements that the holder of the e- card is subject to in its home Member State to the extent that information on compliance with these requirements had been communicated to the host Member State together with the e-card application;
Amendment 111 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
The coordinating authority of the home Member State shall within onefour weeks of having received an application for a European services e-card:
Amendment 112 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 2
2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 12(4) and Article 13(7) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of fivthree years from […]. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period.
Amendment 114 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) verify the completeness and accuracy and validity of the information provided;
Amendment 116 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d
(d) verify that the applicant is legally established in its territory and verify the content, and validity of accompanying documents, if any, that prove compliance with requirements applicable to the service provision to which the applicant is subject in the home Member State;
Amendment 117 #
Proposal for a directive
Annex I – paragraph 1 – part 1
Annex I – paragraph 1 – part 1
Amendment 119 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Where the coordinating authority of the home Member State requests supplementing of the application fromary information from the applicant, or, where, in the event of duly justified doubts, the host Member State requests re-verification of the validity of information submitted by the applicant, the time-limit is suspended until that information is provided.
Amendment 124 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 134 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. Taking into account the rights of Member States as referred to in Article 10, if the coordinating authority of the host Member State does not react within the time-limit referred to in paragraph 1, that time limit shall automatically be extended by two additional weeks and the electronic platform where the application for a European services e-card has been submitted shall issue an alert to the coordinating authority of the host Member State to the effect that failure to react shall imply that there is no objection to the issue of the European services e-card to the applicant.
Amendment 140 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
If the host Member State does not object in accordance with paragraph 1, the coordinating authority of the home Member State shall issue the European services e-card without delay upon expiration of the extended time-limit resulting from the application of paragraph 2. In the absence of any objection under the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 and failing a decision by the coordinating authority of the home Member State upon expiration of the extended time-limit resulting from the application of paragraph 2, the European services e- card shall be deemed to have been issued by the home Member State in the terms communicated to the host Member State in accordance with Article 11(2).
Amendment 148 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
In the context of a procedure for issuing a European services e-card for establishment in the form of a branch, agency or office, the coordinating authority of the host Member State shall, within foursix weeks from receiving the application, identify which, if any, prior authorisation scheme or prior notification scheme as referred to in Article 5(2) is applicable, in compliance with EU law, to such establishment. If such a prior authorisation scheme or prior notification scheme has been identified, the host Member State shall also identify the conditions which the applicant is required to comply with, with the exception of those referred to in Article 5(5). The host Member State shall indicate why the application of such a prior authorisation scheme or prior notification scheme is necessary and proportionate for the pursuance of overriding reasons of public interest.
Amendment 159 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3
Alternatively, the coordinating authority of the host Member State may inform the applicant and the coordinating authority of the home Member State of its intention to reject the application, in which case the applicant shall have a four weeks to present its observations.
Amendment 163 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 4
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 4
Upon receipt of the observations of the applicant or, where no observations have been made, upon expiration of the time- limit to present those observations, the coordinating authority of the host Member State shall decide, within onefour weeks, whether to issue the European services e- card or reject the application for the European services e-card.
Amendment 169 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 6
Article 13 – paragraph 6
Amendment 176 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 7
Article 13 – paragraph 7
7. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 18 in order to specify the procedure for the coordinating authority of the host Member State to request clarifications or additional information from the home Member State as referred to in paragraph 5, and to modifyextend if necessary the time-limits mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 4.
Amendment 179 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 10 – subparagraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 10 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 180 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 10 – subparagraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 10 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 181 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Amendment 187 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 4 – point b
Article 17 – paragraph 4 – point b
(b) permanent or temporary cessation of activities covered by the European services e-card in the territory of the home Member State;
Amendment 188 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 4 – point e
Article 17 – paragraph 4 – point e
(e) any significant change as regards the requirements that the holder of the e- card is subject to in its home Member State to the extent that information on compliance with these requirements had been communicated to the host Member State together with the e-card application;
Amendment 197 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 2
2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 12(4) and Article 13(7) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of fivthree years from […]. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period.
Amendment 201 #
Proposal for a directive
Annex I – paragraph 1 – part 1
Annex I – paragraph 1 – part 1
Amendment 202 #
Proposal for a directive
Annex I – paragraph 1 – part 1 – paragraph 1
Annex I – paragraph 1 – part 1 – paragraph 1
Amendment 203 #
Proposal for a directive
Annex I – paragraph 1 – part 1 – paragraph 2
Annex I – paragraph 1 – part 1 – paragraph 2
Amendment 204 #
Proposal for a directive
Annex I – paragraph 1 – part 1 – paragraph 3
Annex I – paragraph 1 – part 1 – paragraph 3