20 Amendments of Dominique RIQUET related to 2017/2003(INI)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recognises the fact that allthe collaborative economies, covering the full spectruy, from fprom market- orientedfit making to gift-based, are models, is rooted in humanuser cooperative behaviour and that no matter how diverse they arit may be, or will become, they are allit is identified by resource sharing, the active empowerment of citizens, community-accepted innovation, and the intensive use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) as a key enabler;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the emergence of the collaborative economy in transport and tourism services, acknowledging that, with an appropriate regulatory framework in place, it has potential to provide more varied and affordable services to customers and, to boost new forms of cooperative exchanges between citizens and to actively promote the development of sustainable forms of mobility in the EU;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 1 – point 1 (new)
(1) considers it necessary to distinguish between profit-based and cost- sharing collaborative economies; notes that their respective users should not be subject the same legal requirements, specific rights and obligations being applicable in each case;
Amendment 24 #
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 and prevents the emergence of European champions, hampers the development of new initiatives and harms the interest of all actors (of supply and demand); 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 and considers that a coordinated overall European-level action is needed;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Emphasises that ICTs allow innovative ideas within the collaborative economiesy to evolve quickly and efficiently, while connecting and empowering participantusers, reducing the need for intermediation, decreasing direct costs and overheads, channelling rich information flows and reinforcing trust between peers;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines that the sharing of underused assets releases a wealth of positive environmental and other externalitiesassets makes it possible for all parties to make optimum use of them, thus making industries and services more resource- efficient, lowers the up-front costs of market entry and creates opportunities, while conforming to EU growth and environment objectives;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Stresses the need for harmonisation between the collaborative economy and traditional economic forms in the field of training, professional qualifications and fiscal and social obligations;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 3 – point 1 (new)
(1) stresses the importance of ensuring easier access to funding for small and medium-sized enterprises in the collaborative economy through various channels, such as banking, capital markets, public funds and crowdfunding;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that the collaborative economies thrive in communities in which knowledge- and education-sharing models are strong, thereby consolidatingy could be a catalyst for a culture of open innovation, supporting open- sourced hardware and software, and expanding our heritage of common goods and creative commons;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. StresEmphasises that, in the context of the collaborative economy, issues related to consumer protection, liability allocation, insurance schemes, social protection of workers (whether they are employed or self-employed) and data protection are the most urgent ones, and expects a regulatory intervention in that regard; emphasises that a regulatory framework a regulatory framework for the collaborative economy 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. Stresses that a regulatory framework should address, where necessary, issues related to consumer protection, liability allocation, insurance schemes, social protection of workers (whether they are employed or self-employed) and data protection;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. UrgesCalls on the Commission to ensure that the EU develops the highest international standards regardingcollaborative economy platforms are subject to the relevant laws in the Member States so as to safeguard and ensure (a) the social protection for ‘workpreneurs’ in collaborative economies, (b) safety guarantees for the customers of collaborative economies, and (c)and fiscal rights of service providers (b) safety guarantees for users, the protection of their data, and their consumer rights and (c) a level playing field and cohabitation synergies with traditional business models;
Amendment 81 #
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 fullyhave an integrated transport system where collaborative transport services into the conventional transport system andare one amongst several services, beside to small transport undertakings who maintain an important role to play, to avoid administrative systems or legislative measures which might lead to the 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 91 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Believes that collaborative business models constitute a major resource for the sustainable development of connections in outlying, moutainous and rural regions, while these areas are not naturally conducive to the development of the collaborative economy;
Amendment 93 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to ensure that EU legislation and policies are future- friendly and provide legal certainty and stability in order to unleash the full potential of the collaborative economiesy for EU businesses and citizens, while redefining and modernising – where necessary – the concepts of ‘work/service’, ‘workage-earner’ and ‘service provider’;
Amendment 95 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Invites the Commission to integrate the collaborative economy into its work on new technologies in transport (connected vehicles, autonomous vehicles, integrated digital ticketing, intelligent transport systems) because of their strong interactions and natural synergies;
Amendment 97 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4 c. Stresses, in the field of transport, the significant contribution of the collaborative economy to safety and security (clear identification of the parties, reciprocal evaluation, trusted third parties, verification of the specifications)
Amendment 98 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Calls on the Commission, in order to facilitate the emergence of players at not only European but also international level, to address national market fragmentation by means of a harmonised regulatory framework;
Amendment 106 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that the collaborative economies arey is increasingly important in the energy sector, allowing consumers, producers individuals and communities to engage efficiently in several decentralised phases of the renewable energy cycle, including self- production and self- consumption, storage and distribution in line with EU sustainable development objectives.
Amendment 112 #
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 terminologycost-sharing services and commercial transporting services in EU terminology to facilitate compliance by all parties with their fiscal and social obligations and ensure consumer protection, and urges the Commission to come up with proposals to adapt Union legislation accordingly; considers the monetary threshold to be one advisable way to make this distinction;
Amendment 131 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Warnselcomes the fact that intermediation platforms have brought into play the idea of challenging each other, the existing operators and the corporatist structures and undermining existing monopolies; warns however of the danger that, without an appropriate legal framework, intermediation platforms might serve as a suitable seedbed for new monopolies, and therefore asks the Commission to monitor the development of the market and, where needed, to propose measures to protect the competitiveness of European companies in a European market;