14 Amendments of Morten LØKKEGAARD related to 2017/2191(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that competition policy is closely interlinked with taxation policy; eEncourages the Commission to strengthen its efforts to tackle all types of illegal state aid and taxation rules that distort competition in the internal market;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Supports the Commission’s investigations into anti-competitive practices such as selective tax advantages or excess profit ruling systems; emphasises that if there is to befiscal state aids incompatible with the competition rules; emphasises that equal treatment of all entities is crucial for a well- functioning internal market all players need to pay their fair share of tax;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Encourages the Commission to strengthen the supervision of national implementation of competition policy; is concerned that uneven enforcement of EU competition law by national authorities can result in varying outcomes, thus distorting competition in the internal market; welcomes in this regard the Commission’s proposal on the ECN+; stresses in this respect that the refusal of requested authority to enforce a decision imposing fines based on the exception under Art.25.5 of the proposal should always be duly justified and a system should be set up whereby potential disputes between authorities in such cases could be solved; furthermore asks the Commission to ensure that the notification of the start of formal investigative measure received from a national competition authority under Article 11.3 of Regulation 1/2003 is made available to the national competition authorities of the other Member States within the ECN;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Highlights the importance of access to justice for consumers and of the availability for collective redress in order to ensure fair competition; underlines that the absence of such opportunities on EU level weakens competition at, the expensefunctioning of the internal market and consumer rights;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Takes note of the E-commerce Sector Inquiry and its final report;believes that the inquiry should be part of a greater enforcement effort by the Commission to apply the full competition policy to online retailers;underlines that given the asymmetrical relationship between large online retailers and their suppliers, the Commission and national competition authorities should actively enforce competition rules as suppliers, especially SMEs, do not have the means to challenge such players in the courts;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7 b. Is concerned by the increased use of contractual restrictions by manufacturers on online sales, as confirmed by the e-commerce inquiry, and calls on the Commission to further review such clauses to ensure that they do not create unjustified restrictions of competition;at the same time, asks the Commission to review the Guidelines on Vertical Restraints and the Block Exemption (Regulation 330/2010) in light of these changes;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7 c. Believes that retailers should be able to set retail prices freely;believes that price parity and conditional parity clauses may undermine free competition, especially in the digital single market;asks the Commission to further analyse such clauses and if needed, to propose restrictions on their use;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 e (new)
Paragraph 7 e (new)
7 e. Believes that criteria to join a selective distribution or franchising network should be transparent in order to ensure that such criteria do not violate competition policy and the free functioning of the single market;underlines that such criteria must be objective, qualitative, non- discriminatory and not go beyond what is strictly necessary;calls on the Commission to take measures to ensure this transparency;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 g (new)
Paragraph 7 g (new)
7 g. Notes the increased risk of collusion between competitors due to, among others, price monitoring software;considers that concerted practices may emerge despite contact between competitors being weaker than required under current norms, perhaps even automated, as algorithms interact with each other independent of the direction of one or more market players;asks the Commission to be vigilant to such new challenges to free competition;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 h (new)
Paragraph 7 h (new)
7 h. Considers that effective competition policy can complement or, in some cases, replace regulatory initiatives in the area of the Digital Single Market;considers that where the impetus for regulatory action is primarily in response to market actions by some players, it would be wiser to tackle any harms through competition measures;believes this would tackle the real anticompetitive practices without holding back those who seek to compete;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 i (new)
Paragraph 7 i (new)
7 i. Welcomes the Commission's efforts to link with their international partners and multilateral fora in the area of competition policy;believes that international cooperation is increasingly essential where companies subject to actions operate across multiple jurisdictions;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 j (new)
Paragraph 7 j (new)
7 j. Believes that increasing the network of free trade agreements involving the European Union will benefit the enforcement of competition law globally;encourages the Commission in this regard to seek further trade agreement opportunities and to include strong antitrust and state aid rules in any such future agreements;