5 Amendments of Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL related to 2017/2003(INI)
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the Member States’ response to the development of collaborative business models has so far been very fragmented; welcomes in this regard the Commission communication on a European agenda for the collaborative economy, but regrets that it fails to establish an explicit harmonised legal framework for the collaborative economy; calls for use to be made of the interpretative criteria contained in the Commission communication to distinguish between simple intermediation through technological platforms and the provision of a service other than an information society service.
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that, in the context of the collaborative economy, issues related to consumer protection, liability allocation, taxation, insurance schemes, social protection of workers (whether they are employed or self-employed), fair competition and data protection are the most urgent ones, and expects a regulatory intervention in that regard; emphasises that a regulatory framework should create a level playing field, foster innovations and contribute to the overall development and fulfilment of the EU transport policy goals, such as transport decarbonisation, territorial cohesion, affordability, accessibility and safety;
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls the potential of collaborative economy models to improve the efficiency of the transport system and reduce undesired externalities of traffic such as congestion and emissions; emphasises the need to fullycalls on the relevant authorities to integrate true collaborative transport services into the conventional transport system and to avoid administrative systems or legislative measures which might lead to exclusion of collaborative transport services from transport planning and operations, with a view to enabling the creation of smooth complete travel chains and the provision of new forms of sustainable mobility;
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls for the conditions governing independent service provision in regulated sectors such as urban and inter-urban passenger road transport to be overhauled to establish a single regulatory framework combining conditions of access to the profession in compliance with EU law with a regime that ensures continuous and stable provision of services so as to avoid situations of unfair competition.
Amendment 105 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Urges the need to clearly distinguish between legitimate ride-sharing and the provision of commercial transporting services (i.e. ‘non- professional’ vs ‘professional’ service provision) in EU terminology, – with the understanding that similar obligations should apply to the provision of comparable services by transport companies – and urges the Commission to come up with proposals to adapt Union legislation accordingly; considers the monetary threshold tocould be one advisable way to make this distinction;