7 Amendments of Monika HOHLMEIER related to 2015/2233(INI)
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas TiSA is an opportunity for the EU to consolidate its position as the world leader in the field, with 24 % of global trade in services;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Recital F b (new)
Recital F b (new)
Fb. whereas non-tariff barriers, which on average represent more than 50 % of the cost of cross-border services, disproportionately affect small and medium-sized enterprises, which often lack the human and financial resources necessary to overcome those obstacles; whereas the elimination of unnecessary barriers would facilitate their internationalisation;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a
Paragraph 1 – point a
(a) to ensure that the agreement guarantees full respect for EU fundamental rights standards through the inclusion of a legally binding and suspensive human rights clause as a standard part of EU trade agreements with third countries;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b
Paragraph 1 – point b
(b) to incorporate, as a key priority, a comprehensive and unambiguous horizontal self-standing provision, based on Article XIV of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), that fully exempts the existing and future EU legal framework for the protection of personal data from the agreement, without any condition that it must be consistent with other parts of the TiSA, and to ensure that the agreement does not preclude the enforcement of exceptions for the supply of services which are justifiable under the relevant World Trade Organisation rules (Articles XIV and XIVbisa of the GATS);
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point d
Paragraph 1 – point d
(d) to opposestress that the provisions with regard to the protection of personal data in the US draft TiSA chapter on e-commerce should be improved in order to meet the EU standards on data protection;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point f
Paragraph 1 – point f
(f) to show full regard for the need for transparency and accountability in the negotiations throughout the entire process, and to fulfil its obligation under Article 218(10) TFEU, which a recent Court of Justice ruling confirmed as being of statutory character2 , to keep Parliament fully informed on an immediate basis at all stages of the negotiations; to ensure public access to relevant negotiation documents from all parties, with the exception of those which are to be classified with clear justification on a case-by-case basis, with a public justification of the extent to which access to the undisclosed parts of the document in question is likely to specifically and actually undermine the interests protected by the exceptions, in line with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents3 ; to ensure that the agreement in no way weakens the laws of the EU or of its Member States on public access to official documents. __________________ 2 Case C-658/11 Parliament v Council, judgment of 24 June 2014. 33 OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43. OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
(fa) to welcome the substantial push for transparency vis-à-vis the public since the 2014 European elections, including the publication of EU market access offers and the mandate granted by the Council;