Activities of Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI related to 2017/0354(COD)
Plenary speeches (1)
Mutual recognition of goods lawfully marketed in another Member State (debate) IT
Amendments (15)
Amendment 47 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) The concept of overriding reasons of public interest is an evolving concept developed by the Court of Justice in its case-law in relation to Articles 34 and 36 of the Treaty. This concept covers, inter alia, the effectiveness of fiscal supervision, the fairness of commercial transactions, protection of consumers, protection of the environment, the maintenance of press diversity and the risk of seriously undermining the financial balance of the social security systemthe preserving the financial equilibrium of the social security system, the protection of consumers, recipients of services and workers, the safeguarding of the proper administration of justice, fairness of trade transactions, the combating of fraud and the prevention of tax evasion and avoidance, as well as the safe guarding of the effectiveness of fiscal supervision; road transport safety, the guaranteeing of the quality of craft work, the promotion of research and development; the protection of the environment and the urban environment, the health of animals; intellectual property and the safeguarding and conservation of the national historic and artistic heritage, social policy objectives and cultural policy objectives. Such overriding reasons, where legitimate differences exist from one Member State to another, may justify the application of national rules by the competent authorities. However, such decisions need to be duly justified, and the principle of proportionality must always be respected, regard being had to whether the competent authority has in fact made the least restrictive decision possibl. The principle means that decisions need to be legitimate, appropriate, and do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve its objective. Furthermore, administrative decisions restricting or denying market access in respect of goods lawfully marketed in another Member State must not be based on the mere fact that the goods under assessment fulfil the legitimate public objective pursued by the Member State in a different way from the way that domestic goods in that Member State fulfil that objective.
Amendment 64 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) The evidence required to demonstrate that goods are lawfully marketed in another Member State varies significantly from Member State to Member State. This causes unnecessary burdens delays and additional costs for economic operators, while preventing national authorities from obtaining the information necessary for assessing the goods in a timely manner. This may inhibit application of the mutual recognition principle. It is therefore essential to make it easier for economic operators to demonstrate that their goods are lawfully marketed in another Member State. Economic operators should be able to benefit from a process of self-declaration, which should provide competent authorities with all necessary information on the goods and on their compliance with the rules applicable in that other Member State. The use of the declaration does not prevent national authorities from taking a decision restricting market access, on the condition that such a decision is proportionate and respects the mutual recognition principle and this Regulation.
Amendment 69 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) It is important to ensure that the mutual recognition declaration is filled in truthfully and accurately. It is therefore necessary to provide for economic operators to be responsible for the information contained in the declaration. Fraudulent declarations should be prosecuted in accordance with national laws.
Amendment 76 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) Where producers decide not to make use of the mutual recognition declaration mechanism, it should be for the Member State to request the information that it considers necessary for the assessment of the goods, taking due account of the principle of proportionality. The use of the declaration does not prevent national authorities from taking a decision restricting the access to market in accordance with European law.
Amendment 85 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) While a competent authority is assessing goods before deciding whether or not it should deny or restrict market access, it should not be able to take decisions suspending market access, except where rapid intervention is required to prevent harm to safety and health of users or to prevent the goods being made available where the making available of such goods is generally prohibited on grounds of an overriding reason of general interest such as public morality or public security, including for example the prevention of crime.
Amendment 97 #
(34) However, where the SOLVIT's informal approach fails, and serious doubts remain regarding the compatibility of the administrative decision with the mutual recognition principle the Commission should be empowered to look into the matter and provide an assessment to be taken into account by the competent national authorities at the request of the SOLVIT centre. The Commission's intervention should be subject to a reasonable time-limit, in compliance with the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour and compatible with the short deadlines of the SOLVIT system.
Amendment 103 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38
Recital 38
(38) Cooperation between competent authorities is essential for the smooth functioning of the mutual recognition principle and for creating a mutual recognition culture. Product Contact Points and national competent authorities should therefore be required to cooperate and exchange information and expertise in order to ensure a correct and consistent application of the principle and of this Regulation. The Union should finance activities aiming at enhancing this cooperation between competent authorities such as trainings and exchanges of good practices.
Amendment 123 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – title
Article 4 – title
4 Mutual recognition declaraLawful marketing declaration regarding mutual recognition
Amendment 141 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. Economic operators shall be responsible for the content and accuracy of the information that they themselves provide in the mutual recognition declarationlawful marketing declaration regarding mutual recognition. Fraudulent declarations shall be prosecuted in accordance with national laws.
Amendment 151 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 7 – point a
(a) the declaration, together with any evidence reasonably required by the competent authority to verify the information contained in it and the characteristics of the goods or type of goods, shall be accepted by the competent authority as sufficient to demonstrate that the goods are lawfully marketed in another Member State; and
Amendment 175 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. Where a competent authority of a Member State has doubts as regards goods which the economic operator claims are lawfully marketed in another Member State, the competent authority shall contact the relevant economic operator without delay and shall carry out an assessment the goods. The purpose of the assessment is to establish whether the goods or that type of goods are lawfully marketed in another Member State and, if so, whether the goods or that type of goods ensure at least an equivalent level of protection of the public interest covered by applicable national technical regulation of the Member State of destination.
Amendment 192 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point e
Article 5 – paragraph 5 – point e
Amendment 209 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the making available of the goods, or goods of that type, on the domestic market in that Member State is generally prohibited in that Member State on grounds ofan overriding reason of general interest such as public morality or public security.
Amendment 254 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) exchange of good practices ;
Amendment 259 #
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 3
Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 3
3. Description of the goods or type of goods subject of the declaration and their characteristics: [Note: the description should be sufficient to enable the goods to be identified for traceability reasons. It may be accompanied by a photograph, where appropriate]