16 Amendments of Andreas SCHWAB related to 2020/2223(INI)
Amendment 54 #
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; emphasises its importance also in crisis conditions; underlines moreover the importance of the cooperation between national competition authorities ("NCAs") and the European Commission through the mechanism of the European Competition Network ("ECN") in order to strengthen the enforcement of competition law within the EU single market;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the adoption of athe Temporary Framework for State aid measures established in response to the COVID-19 crisisand the various decisions to prolong and expand it in response to the unexpected developments related to the Covid-19 crisis over the past year;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Recalls on the Commission that the State aid rules must be applied equally to all companies in particular in some strategic EU sectors (as i.e. transports), without any exceptions and regardless of the covid-19 situation in the MSs; stresses that State aids should not be granted to companies that were inefficient and loss making before the Covid-19 crisis.
Amendment 133 #
8 b. Calls on the Commission to ensure and monitor the proper use and distribution of the different EU funding measures in response to the COVID-19 crisis without leading to any distortions of competition, in particular in some critical sectors as telecommunications, energy or transports;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Emphasises the importance of an increasingly intense global dialogue and cooperation on competition policy enforcement, especially at the "International Competition Network" ("ICN") level;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Takes the view thatCalls on the Commission to assess the need of new competition tools might be needed to deal with structural competition problems across digitalfferent markets which current rules cannot address in the most effective manner;
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls onWelcomes the Commission to consider proposals's proposal, the Digital Markets Act, 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;
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 236 #
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; in particular points out that the aim of the latter is to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market by promoting effective competition, a level playing field in digital markets and a fair and contestable online platform environment;
Amendment 245 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Considers that Parliament should play an active role in the political debate on competition policy, including through organising a public hearing with the CEOs of GAFA (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple);
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 315 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)
Paragraph 29 a (new)
29 a. Recalls on the Commission to carry out an evaluation of the Damages Directive (2014/104/EU), once sufficient experience from the application of the new rules has accumulated in all Member States in order to assess the eventual need to make some changes for a more effective and harmonized enforcement of damages actions across the EU;
Amendment 318 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
Paragraph 30 a (new)
Amendment 323 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Recalls thatStresses the importance of tracking down cartels that represent some of the most serious violations of competition law especially in time of crisis;
Amendment 332 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Suggests looking into ‘killer acquisition’ practices that could jeopardise innovation; Welcomes the recent Commission's initiative of encouraging a greater usage of the ‘Dutch clause’ of article 22 EUMR as first step to address the problematic ‘killer acquisition’ practices that could jeopardise innovation and the florishing of European start-ups and small entreprises;