17 Amendments of Andreas SCHWAB related to 2016/2244(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the lack of homogeneity in its application across the Member States undermined the effectivenessRegrets that, to date, there has been scarcely any information about the application of Commission Regulation No 330/2010 in the area of franchising;
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas there is no common European definition of franchising, but it normally involveecause of the differences between franchising agreements, but one key feature of such agreements is a partnership between natural or legal persons that are legally and financially independent of each other, whereby one party (the franchisor) grants to the other party (the franchisee) the right to operate his franchising formula to sell goods and/or services, and shares know- how, the intention of both the franchisor and the franchisee being to generate business revenue;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that the regulation’s clauses on vertical restraints do not allow balanced representation of the two parties to the franchising and are notCommission should check whether the effectiveness of that regulation is not being undermined as a result of inconsistent application in the Member States and whether it is in line with recent market developments, in particular the exempted post-contractual clauses and purchasing conditions;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that the Commission should check to what extent implementation of the regulation could be improved through a mechanism of assessment at European level should be improved, and; stresses that the unsatisfactory follow-up action by the Commission prevents cross-border retail activity and fails to create a level playing field within the single market;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Points out that the Commission should start public consultations with a view to correctingand, in that context, check whether it is necessary to adapt the model on which the future block exemption regulation is based and, in order to establishing the concept of a franchising contract to be used in any future EU legislation, as well as for possible action in the area of private law;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to also ensure the recovery of any illegal state aid by means of tax advantages in the area of franchises and to show firmness in the conduct and result of ongoing inquiries, such as the McDonald’s case; stresses, moreover, that the EU needs to have more stringent legislation on tax rulings, providing also for an effective system and a debt recovery procedure in favour of EU budget own resources; calls on the Commission to rectify any infringement in the area of franchising with the view to ensuring fair competition across the single market;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Commission to check whether it is necessary to revisew the regulation before 2018 and to (1)and, in that connection, to verify (1) the impact of the horizontal approach on the functioning of franchising; (2) test whether the model of franchising adopted in the regulation reflects the market reality, and correct it if necessary; (3) assess the negative effects and proportionality of the permitted vertical restraints, taking into account also their impact on the functioning of franchising by establishing market standards, for example a revision of the definition of know-how and a reconsideration of the context of territorial exclusivity clauses and permitted options; (4) collect market information in terms of new trends, market development regarding network organisation and technological advances; (5) considering that the subject is not covered at the national level, further assess the; (3) to what extent permitted vertical restraints are proportionate and have negative effects; (4) and what new challenges franchisors and franchisees have to face in the context of e- commerce; (6) adapt the regulation in order to achieve a general improvement and align it with digitalisation of the economy and digitisation in general;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Believes that a reporting or complaint model should be set up by the Member States for reporting, for making complaints and for submitting other relevant information they receive via a contact point or in any othe Commissionr way, with a view to simplifying the information- gathering process as regards the market situation; calls on the Commission to draw up, on the basis of that information, a non-exhaustive schedule of unfair contractual terms and practices;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. CallsAcknowledges that, on a national level, legislation has been enacted to protect franchisees, but the focus is on the pre-contractual stage, to impose disclosure obligations on the franchisor; calls therefore on the Commission to revise the rules on the enforcement of the regulation by Member States, while its application should be proportionally adjusted to fulfil its aim;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13 a. Stresses that regulation should maintain and increase market confidence in franchising as a way of doing business as it encourages entrepreneurism not only in SMEs that become franchisors, but also in individuals who become franchisees;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Stresses that UTPs in franchising can only be determined after specific analysis has been carried out in which also the view of franchisees has been taken into account, believes that the next step should be to organise a multi- stakeholder debate to discuss unfair practices in franchise supply chains and possible solutions and this can be reached by organizing an Expert Platform, as has been the case with food supply chains, or by opening a public consultation;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Calls on the Commission and Member States to promote the creation of associations representingencourage dialogue between franchisors, franchisees, and to make sure that their voices are heard,decision-makers whenever policies or legislation are prepared that may affect them;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Emphasises that there is a persistent lack of information on the functioning of franchising in the retail sector and calls on the Commission to open aMember States to assign, in cooperation with the Commission, contact points for information on problems encountered by franchisees, whilst guaranteeing the confidentiality of the information thus acquired;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Takes note of the European Code of Ethics for Franchising, developed by the European Franchise Federation, but also notes that the Code has been unilaterally drawn up by franchisors and has met with fundamental criticism from franchisees pointing, inter alia, to the fact that the code preceding the 2016 revision of the Code was worded more strongly in respect of the commitments of thecontent of the Code has been subject to criticism from franchisorees;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the Commission to examine complaints itMember States to submit to the Commission complaints and other relevant information they receives through a contact point or otherwise and to draw up; calls on the Commission to draw up, on the basis of that information, a non- exhaustive listschedule of unfair trading practices based on this informationand, if additionally necessary, to set up an expert platform in order to obtain further information about retail franchising practice and, in particular, about types of unfair trading practices;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Points, in particular, to the need for correct and comprehensive pre-contractual information, including information on the franchise formula’s performance, both general and targeted towards the franchisee’s envisaged location, to be available in writing at least 15 working days prior to nd withe signing of the agreement, and the introduction of a five-day cooling- off period after executionufficient notice prior to the signing of the agreement;