Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-03-Speech-2-303"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020903.10.2-303"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, in my introductory remarks this morning I explained that the objections of this Parliament and of other groups in society concentrated on four different sectors, four different aspects of this subject. On behalf of the Commission I should now like to address those four aspects. Almost all MEPs who took the floor this morning and this evening have mentioned sale below cost. In discussing national provisions banning sale below cost, Mr Beysen, Mr Langen, Mrs Fourtou, Mrs McCarthy, Mr MacCormick and many others expressed concern at how SMEs would be affected if these national provisions were to be abolished. I think the resolution before us offers an acceptable solution as it asks the Commission to undertake further investigation before proposing a Community-wide solution to this problem. The authors of the resolution agree with the Commission that varying national rules in this area make cross-border purchasing and price strategies more difficult, and that action at European level is necessary for this reason. The Commission finds the compromise acceptable.
I should also like to emphasise that the Commission does not agree that such prohibitions on sale below cost are needed to maintain clearance sales. After all, seasonal clearance sales of this kind operate well in the seven Member States that do not have such provisions. It is for this reason that the Commission cannot accept Amendment No 30 tabled by Mrs Thyssen. I am happy to clarify, though, that the study which the Commission has promised to carry out into selling below cost will take proper account of the consequences of deregulation for SMEs.
I should now like to turn to the second topic which I mentioned this morning. With regard to the comments made by Mrs Patrie on consumer protection and the link between this initiative and our activities on fair trading practices, Mr Beysen's report fortunately does not take the view that this proposal will have a negative impact on our ongoing study into the need for an initiative on fair trading practices. That confirms the statements made by my fellow MEP Mr Byrne and myself on a number of occasions, namely that these two initiatives are entirely complementary. The Commission therefore regrets that it is unable to accept Amendment No 28 tabled by Mrs Ghilardotti and the second part of Amendment No 12 tabled by Mrs Niebler. The information requirements in the proposal offer a high level of consumer protection, which is why the Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 41 and 50, which would undermine the level of consumer protection. On the issue of alcohol, the Commission does not consider Amendment No 80 to be proportional since the Member States restrict the sale of alcoholic products to minors.
On the third point, promotional games, I can tell you that in view of Parliament's strong opposition to the Commission's present approach to this subject, the Commission accepts the compromise solution put forward in Mr Beysen's report. For that reason the Commission cannot accept Amendment No 8 as it is currently worded. Amendments Nos 20, 21 and 22 tabled by Mrs Patrie and Mr Lehne are now redundant since the link between taking part in a promotional game and the sale of a product is no longer possible.
Fourthly, I should like to address the issue of mutual recognition. I should like to point out that this principle serves to allow free movement in sales promotion activities even without excessive harmonisation. As Mrs McCarthy and Mrs Fourtou have clearly indicated, the principle of mutual recognition is the cornerstone of all our work in the area of the internal market. As we already know, this applies to the Internet as well. Amendments designed to remove this principle from the proposal, such as Amendment No 72 tabled by Mrs Patrie or Amendment No 79 tabled by Mr MacCormick and Mrs Hautala, are therefore unacceptable to the Commission. The same applies to Amendment No 73 tabled by Mrs Patrie which makes the application of this principle dependent on further cumbersome notification procedures.
The Commission also rejects amendments that undermine the internal market, such as Amendments Nos 28 and 12, and amendments that aim to exclude certain sectors from their advantages, such as the first part of Amendment No 13 tabled by Mrs Niebler. The Commission is also unable to accept Amendment No 39 on language requirements.
Finally, I should like to inform Mr Fiori that the Commission certainly agrees that the opportunity to obtain redress must be used as quickly as possible, but the Commission thinks that in most cases this is best done by the promoter itself. The Commission will propose a certain number of rules ensuring that the promoter acts in this regard.
Mr President, those are my replies to the questions and comments presented this morning and this evening. The only task remaining to me is the pleasant one of thanking Mr Beysen and his shadow rapporteur for the outstandingly positive contribution they have made as rapporteurs to our discussions on this important topic, which has aroused such lively interest. The Commission knows that Mr Beysen has devoted a great deal of time and effort to this task, which presented many difficulties to him and his committee. The Commission is very grateful that we have finally managed to reach a satisfactory compromise, and hopes and expects that it will be passed when it is put to the vote, which I believe will take place tomorrow."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples