Activities of Olga SEHNALOVÁ related to 2015/2065(INI)
Plenary speeches (2)
Unfair trading practices in the food supply chain (A8-0173/2016 - Edward Czesak) CS
Unfair trading practices in the food supply chain (short presentation) CS
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on unfair trading practices in the food supply chain PDF (350 KB) DOC (143 KB)
Amendments (28)
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Draws attention to the growing fragmentation of rules governing UTPs and the enforcement of these rules in individual Member States; emphasises that the fragmentation of rules and of market conditions could lead to imbalance and have negative repercussions for suppliers, traders and consumers and the functioning of the internal market;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Strongly believes that the EU needs a unified approach in the enforcement of rules if it is to guarantee greater legal certainty, facilitate cross-border trade, establish universal norms and promote an exchange of best practices across the EU;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. ConfirmsIs troubled by the existence of UTPs in the food supply chain and acknowledgemphasises that they are contrary to the basic principles of law;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Points out that UTPs imposed by parties in a stronger bargaining position clearly have a negative impact; stresses that UTPs can hamper investment and product innovation and push companies to make savings at the expense of salaries, working conditions or the quality of raw materials;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Points out that that the impact UTPs have on consumers has not been thoroughly investigated at EU level, in particular the quality and quantity of food and agricultural products and distribution margins;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Believes that there is a need to rebalance bargaining power across the supply chain, placing particular emphasis on guaranteeing customers high-quality food products; draws particular attention to the issues surrounding margin share and the impact these have on the consumer end-price; insists on the need to increase the competitiveness of individual market players and make prices more transparent across the food supply chain;
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Acknowledges, nonetheless, that voluntary and self-regulatory schemes are not enough to put an end to UTPs once and for all, owing to the lack of effective enforcement mechanisms and the fact that they do not apply to the whole supply chain and do not have the power to impose effective penalties;
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Points out that on the single market products containing different ingredients are being sold to customers under the same brand name and in the same packaging; calls on the Commission to decide if this is an unfair practice with negative repercussions for suppliers of local and regional produce, in particular small and medium enterprises;
Amendment 232 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Suggests that work should begin on EU rules on the establishment or recognition of national public agencies with responsibility for enforcing laws to combat unfair practices in the food supply chain; takes the viewstresses that public agencies of this kind shouldmust be empowered to conduct investigations on their own initiative and on the basis of informal information and complaints dealt with on a confidential basis (thus overcoming the fear factor), as well as to imposto act as a mediator between the parties involved and to impose effective and dissuasive penalties;
Amendment 313 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Is very concerned about recent findings that one of the early signatories of the SCI operating across Europe has been found guilty of unreasonably delaying payments to its suppliers; regrets that neither the Commission nor the SCI has directly reported this finding in their reports;
Amendment 318 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Is concerned about the Commission report which does not take into account many findings of the study, notably with regard to the assessment of voluntary approaches;
Amendment 322 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Regrets that no concrete case has been examined to assess the SCI role in tackling unfair trading practices;
Amendment 323 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3d. Regrets that some of the dispute resolution options promoted by the SCI have not yet been used in practice and the assessment of their effectiveness has been based more on "theoretical" judgments rather than on empirical observation;
Amendment 324 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 e (new)
Paragraph 3 e (new)
3e. Rather than simply encouraging some improvements in the SCI, stresses that study evaluating the effectiveness of the SCI highlights a broad range of its shortcomings – lack of trust from external experts and organisations, weaknesses in governance, under-representation of SMEs, limitations in transparency and no enforcement measures and penalties;
Amendment 325 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 f (new)
Paragraph 3 f (new)
3f. Stresses the evaluation of the study which concludes that SCI has very limited powers to directly enforce measures to address UTPs, notably due to the lack of effective deterrents against unfair behaviour;
Amendment 326 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 g (new)
Paragraph 3 g (new)
3g. Believes, that current voluntary framework's dispute resolutions should remain available for all suppliers who are not concerned about their anonymity and may usefully evolve as an educational and best practices sharing platform;
Amendment 327 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 h (new)
Paragraph 3 h (new)
3h. Regrets that study assessed only 4 national voluntary initiatives; points out that only one of those is generally considered as effective and adequate; on the contrary, another one has been negatively affected by serious weaknesses and no disputes have been brought before the board to date;
Amendment 328 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 i (new)
Paragraph 3 i (new)
3i. Points out that recent study findings do not bring the evidence for the Commission's evaluation statement that voluntary initiatives seem to work better in some countries than in others, and that the Commission should seriously take into account several rather negative national experiences with voluntary agreements in order to move towards establishing concrete legislative and enforcing measures to prevent unfair trading practices;
Amendment 339 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Points out, following the recent Commission study main findings on the Supply chain initiative, that more than 20 Member States have introduced legislation to combat UTPs or are planning to do so in the near future; welcomes that Commission report identifies a number of specific areas to be improved in this regard; believes, that this set of best practices should serve as a basis for effective and transparent framework of legislative and enforcement measures in the EU;
Amendment 372 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Notes results of the study, where survey respondents indicated as the most preferred approaches in tackling UTPs the combination of voluntary initiatives and public enforcement (33% of total answers) or a specific legislation at EU level (32%); on the other side, reliance on voluntary initiatives alone at national (4%) or EU level (9 %) resulted to be the less preferred approach;
Amendment 373 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17b. Believes that in order to reduce UTPs effectively, the Commission should take concrete measures to create common binding rules and should establish or appoint a network of national enforcement authorities which operate according to minimum principles and enforcement standards developed at the EU level;
Amendment 374 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 c (new)
Paragraph 17 c (new)
17c. Questions the Commission's vague statement that different approaches in Member States do not seem to have negative consequences for the Single market; points out that previous study accompanying Commission's communication recommended to address the fragmentation of legal rules and approaches in the EU in order to prevent a negative impact of fragmentation on the EU Single Market; Is convinced that fragmentation and different legislative approaches in MS contribute to legal uncertainty, additional costs for businesses, notably SMEs, and raise difficulties to the cross-border market access and cooperation;
Amendment 375 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 d (new)
Paragraph 17 d (new)
17d. Welcomes that the Commission finds it necessary to ensure that UTP legislation covers operators from non-EU countries; Believes that clear and transparent rules at the EU level would facilitate fair trading practices towards third countries traders;
Amendment 378 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Is convinced that functioning enforcement mechanisms should be accessible to all market operators in the food supply chain, regardless of geographical origin;
Amendment 379 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18b. Believes that the scope of enforcement should cover entire supply chain both inside Europe and overseas in order to positively contribute to the overall sustainability of the food production; suggests coordinated enforcement across the EU to discourage market players from moving their purchasing department to low-enforcement countries to continue with UTPs;
Amendment 380 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 c (new)
Paragraph 18 c (new)
18c. Calls on Member States without a competent enforcement authority to consider establishment of enforcement authority and provide it with the power to supervise and enforce measures necessary to tackle UTPs;
Amendment 381 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 d (new)
Paragraph 18 d (new)
18d. Points out that existing fragmented and low enhanced cooperation within different national enforcement bodies is not sufficient to address cross-border challenges regarding UTPs;
Amendment 382 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 e (new)
Paragraph 18 e (new)
18e. Highlights that the enforcement authorities should have a number of different enforcement measures and different range of sanctions at their disposal to allow, according to the gravity, flexibility of response; believes that these measures should aim at changing behaviour and deterrence;