Activities of Ramon TREMOSA i BALCELLS related to 2018/2102(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Annual report on competition policy (debate)
Amendments (13)
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Underlines the urgent need for an effective framework tailored to the challenges of the data-driven economy; notes in particular that digital platforms, in controlling ever-increasing data flows,; users are not aware to the extent their data is being used and passed on to third parties for marketing or commercial purposes and certainly didn't give explicit consent for such utilisation1a; generate considerable network externalities and economies of scale, and ultimately, by dint of excessive concentration, rent extraction and abusive market power, bring about market failures; __________________ 1a https://ig.ft.com/mobile-app-data- trackers/
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Recalls that the EU has established comprehensive rules to protect the privacy and data protection of individuals in the EU; Individuals whose personal data are processed benefit from the rights provided under the General Data Protection Regulation GDPR1a including a right to object to processing and to withdraw consent. The GDPR requires amongst others that processing be lawful, fair and transparent, and that personal data be collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes. In addition, Directive 2002/58/EC (the ePrivacy Directive)1b complements and particularises the GDPR as regards the processing of personal data in the electronic communications sector. Notably, Article 5(3) provides that the storing of information or the gaining of access to the information already stored in the terminal equipment is only allowed when the subscriber or user concerned has given his or her consent; such storage or access is necessary to transmit the communication; or it is necessary to provide an information society service explicitly requested by a subscriber or user; __________________ 1a https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:3201 6R0679&from=EN 1b https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:3200 2L0058&from=EN
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Calls the European Commission to organise a hearing with tech companies inviting the CEOs of Google, Facebook and Apple in order to discuss in particular how consumers’ personal data is harvested and used by third countries. In fact, users, regulators and sometimes even the app developers and advertisers are unaware of the extent to which data flow from smartphones to digital advertising groups and other third parties. Data collected by third parties through smartphone apps can include anything from profile information such as age and gender to location details, including data about nearby cell phone towers or Wi-Fi routers, and information about every other app on a phone. The EU should empower individuals to understand the monopoly and concentration issues surrounding these tracking companies;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. In line with EU comprehensive rules to protect the privacy and data protection GDPR of individuals in the EU; Requests big technological companies such as Google, Facebook and Apple to process and collect personal data for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes. This processing shall be lawful, fair and transparent. Calls on the EU, in line with Article 5(3) of the Directive 2002/58/EC (the ePrivacy Directive) to force digital companies to exploit personal data only after the subscriber or user concerned has given his explicit consent. Without this consent, data cannot been transferred to third parties with which the company or platform has an agreement with;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Welcomes the EC Antitrust decision fining Google €4.34 billion for illegal practices regarding Android mobile devices to strengthen dominance of Google's search engine; calls on the Commission to conclude in 2019 the Google Shopping antitrust case that was launched in November 2010, 8 years ago. Reminds the Commission to conclude the investigation of Google's treatment in its search results of other specialised Google search services, including the issues related to local search that Yelp raised in its recent complaint; recommends to the Directorate-General for Competition to reflect on the length of digital antitrust cases and to reflect on the most appropriate tool for addressing those; notably asks the Commission to consider the possibility of setting deadlines for antitrust cases such as in merger cases;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7b. Reiterates the need for the Commission to also consider the full structural unbundling of digital tech monopolies as a possible solution to restore competition and a level playing field within the European digital market;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Points to the discrepancies between the rules on state aid in the area of liquidation aid and the resolution regime under the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD); underlines the lack of harmonisation between the BRRD and the 2013 Banking Communication, especially as regards to the business reorganisation plan established by the BRRD and the restructuring plan established by the 2013 Banking Communication, in some specific resolutions where the Fund would be used as liquidation aid; points out that in two recent cases, in spite of the Single Resolution Board’s (SRB) conclusions that resolution could not be justified on the grounds of public interest and that the SRB could not rely on proper information issued by its independent expert, the Commission approved state aid on the basis that it would mitigate economic disturbance at a regional level, thereby demonstrating two distinct interpretations of public interest; urges the Commission, therefore, to reconsider its interpretation of the relevant state aid rules in a manner consistent with the BRRD and to revise its 2013 Banking Communication accordingly, including the area of liquidation aid;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Recalls that the definition of “failing or likely to fail” was labelled by the SRB in its annual conference of 15 October 2018 as raising extremely difficult questions; underlines the necessity to revise this definition in order to ease future resolution procedures, also when liquidation aid might be involved; recalls that the first European resolution ever made to a bank, Spain’s Banco Popular, has been controversial and is still a matter of denunciation by its shareholders, who also wish their voice heard in this Parliament;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Welcomes the Commission decision to open an in-depth investigation to assess whether the 900 million bridge loan given to Italian airline Alitalia constitutes state aid and whether it complies with EU rules for aid to companies in difficulty; Notes that Italian authorities have been asked to provide clarifications about several issues, such as the acquisition of new uniforms, the building of a new lounge and whether interest has been paid to the State on the EUR 900 million loan. Calls the Commission to be strict with Italian authorities in particular with regards Point 55 of the EC Rescue and restructuring rules.1a The Commission must set the standards in order to avoid other companies imitating this kind of behaviour and wasting taxpayers money; __________________ 1a https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:5200 4XC1001(01)&from=EN
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Asks the Commission to analyse carefully the significant potential harmful impact of the proposed Siemens / Alstom merger on the competitiveness of the European rail market and its adverse effects on rail users; who would be faced with higher prices, less choice and lower levels of service, quality, and innovation. The proposed merger will probably harm the market for high-speed rolling stock, for mainline and metro trains, as well as the entire rail infrastructure by creating a dominant position in signalling in the EU, and specifically in Member States such as Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Romania, Spain and the United Kingdom;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Stresses the importance of endowing competition authorities with sufficient human and financial resources to carry out their work; supports, in this connection, the proposed competition strand of the single market programme under the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF);
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Insist on the need of regular and permanent structural dialogues between the European Commissioner for competition with the ECON committee and in particular with the Competition working Group of this Committee;
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)
Paragraph 14 b (new)
14b. Stresses the importance for the European Commission in its regular exchanges with national competition authorities to insist on the importance of full independence of such authorities. In particular, the appointment of its Presidents and top management should not be political appointments. Sufficient and adequate financial and human resources are a prerequisite for an effective enforcement of competition rules;