Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
IMCO European Parliament
Follow its sittingsStéphane Séjourné
Nous avons également lancé un programme annuel en matière d'application des règles du marché unique. Et nous avons fait un focus sur les retards de paiement dans ce cadre-là avec une vingt-cinq infractions pour vingt-cinq pays qui ont été engagées et qui doivent nous permettre de faire avancer les choses sur ce volet-là. Nous avons mis en place le réseau des sherpas du marché unique. C'était une des initiatives que je vous commentais lors du dialogue structuré que nous avons eu le mois dernier. Toutes ces propositions contribuent donc à rendre le marché unique plus transparent, plus simple, plus solide également.
Mais nous avons encore des devoirs à faire.
Et dans notre rapport annuel sur le marché unique et la compétitivité, il y a encore un certain nombre d'éléments que nous pouvons améliorer. Des obstacles importants subsistent donc, notamment au niveau national, vous l'avez rappelé Madame la Présidente. Nous avons identifié dix obstacles, les fameux Terrible Ten, qui étaient la pierre angulaire de notre stratégie et qui rassemblaient en quelque sorte à la fois les devoirs de la Commission et en même temps, pour chaque Terrible Ten, les devoirs des États membres. Ces deux volets étaient présents dans notre stratégie. Et c'est là que nous devons probablement concentrer nos efforts collectivement pour faire aboutir ces sujets.
Nous avons décliné à travers 28 problèmes très concrets identifiés à travers les rapports publics disponibles et les retours des parties prenantes. Cela constitue donc une heat map qui sert de cadre de nos discussions avec les États membres.
Et ces discussions portent à la fois sur la méthodologie afin d'améliorer les indicateurs, sur les barrières en elles-mêmes afin de pouvoir les lever et d'apporter un appui européen lorsque c'est nécessaire. Et ces travaux s'effectuent de manière bilatérale d'État membre vis-à-vis de la Commission et dans le cadre de la task force SMET, Single Market Enforcement Task Force, que nous avons constituée et donc élevée aussi au niveau politique avec les sherpas. Au cours des derniers mois, nous avons lancé des axes de travail visant à supprimer des obstacles dans le secteur des services, à savoir des professions réglementées, probablement les meilleures avancées que nous avons obtenues pour l'instant en termes de méthodologie avec les États membres.
Nous nous sommes penchés en particulier sur le secteur de la construction et nous avons regardé, analysé les professions réglementées. À la fois quand elles sont dans moins de cinq États membres, nous avons invité les États membres concernés à réfléchir sur la nécessité de conserver cette réglementation pour ces professions réglementées, à savoir qu'à partir du moment où les professions ne concernent que cinq États membres, on peut se poser justement la question de savoir si elles sont réellement justifiées pour les États membres.
Et dans d'autres cas, lorsque les réglementations sont présentes dans un grand nombre d'États membres, nous avons invité à fluidifier et accélérer les procédures de reconnaissance mutuelle entre les États membres pour pouvoir justement permettre une fluidité des travailleurs. Ma collègue Roxana Mînzatu fera des propositions en ce sens dans le cadre du Fair Labour Mobility Package à la rentrée.
Et donc nous avons besoin de votre soutien ici au Parlement européen, parfois de votre pression sur les États membres pour faire avancer le processus. Nous suivons également de près les outils de prévention qui sont existants à la Commission dans ce cadre-là et nous avons lancé plusieurs axes de travail, notamment pour améliorer les contrôles de proportionnalité effectués par les autorités et les États membres et de l'autre côté pour évaluer les coûts économiques des lacunes dans les obligations de notification sur ce volet-là.
Alors si nécessaire, nous ne l'avons pas encore fait pour le moment, mais la Commission se réserve le droit de proposer une loi sur la prévention des obstacles au marché unique en 2027. Pour l'instant, il n'y a pas de volonté de rajouter de nouveaux actes législatifs, mais néanmoins si c'est nécessaire et si nous voyons que d'autres obstacles arrivent ou pourraient survenir dans le cours de l'année 2026-2027, nous nous permettons de proposer cette loi si besoin dans les prochains dans les prochains mois.
Dans les mois à venir, peut-être pour avoir un peu plus de perspective, et j'en finirai là, la Commission présentera un certain nombre d'autres propositions phares. Je voudrais les lister que vous ayez en tête qu'elles ont un trait réellement au marché intérieur. D'abord, la loi sur les marchés publics, modernisation, simplification, un levier considérable également les marchés publics compte tenu du poids des marchés publics dans notre économie, 15 % du PIB, 2000 milliards d'euros de dépenses annuelles dans les marchés publics.
Deuxième texte important qu'il faudra suivre et qui concerne le marché intérieur, la législation européenne sur les produits, le Product Act qui rationalisera notre cadre réglementaire pour les produits. Troisième élément, le règlement sur l'économie circulaire qui intégrera la circularité au cœur du marché unique. Ce sera également l'occasion aussi de remédier à la fragmentation des régimes de responsabilité élargie des producteurs qui est un obstacle prioritaire qui a été ciblé dans les Terrible Ten.
Et puis tout cela est ancré dans la feuille de route Une Europe, un marché signée par les trois institutions le 24 avril dernier. C'est l'expression d'un engagement à mettre en œuvre nos initiatives prioritaires assorties d'objectifs et d'échéances clairs en termes de calendrier d'ici la fin 2027. Vous pouvez donc compter en tout cas sur la mobilisation entière de la Commission ainsi que notre soutien pour rappeler leurs obligations aux États membres en matière de marché unique. La balle est aussi, comme vous l'avez rappelé Madame la Présidente, dans leur camp.
Thank you so much for the presentation and also for laying out your plans and also where we stand in the enforcement of the single market strategy. So now we have the round of MEPs and at the end you get the time to answer. We start with Pablo Arias Echeverría for EPP.
Pablo Arias Echeverría
Thank you very much, Chair.
If I may, I would like to welcome Mr. Malcolm Harbour that is behind me and he used to be the president, the chair of this committee and just to say hello to him. He's right there. And then, thank you very much, Commissioner. A year ago, the Commission presented the Single Market Strategy. It clearly identified the main barriers that continue to hold back the single market, the so-called terrible ten.
As I have said before and I repeat today, the biggest barrier remains protectionism by Member States. A few weeks ago in Parliament's plenary session in Strasbourg, you noted that around 70% of the work lies with the Member States. I agree, but the European institutions must also continue to play an active role in tackling these barriers. With that in mind, I would like to focus on one of the initiatives announced in the strategy: the Single Market Barriers Prevention Act.
Its presentation is planned for the third quarter of 2027, on the basis of an assessment of the effectiveness of the existing preventive instruments. Commissioner, what concrete measures is the Commission considering to ensure that this instrument can effectively prevent new national barriers from emerging, and how will you make sure that it delivers real results and is not undermined by regulatory fragmentation that already exists today? Thank you.
Thank you very much.
For S&D, Maria Grapini.
Maria Grapini
Mulțumesc. Domnule comisar, o să vorbesc în limba română. Îmi place limba franceză, dar... În primul rând, și eu mă bucur că sunteți aici. Vreau foarte repede să vorbesc și să pun concret niște întrebări.
Dumneavoastră ați spus că nu mai vreți să reglementați, dar dacă va fi nevoie, veți veni și cu noi reglementări pentru a elimina obstacolele. Nu credeți că obstacolele apar exact din proasta implementare a actualelor reglementări? Și am să vă dau un exemplu. De exemplu, plăți întârziate. Noi avem o directivă pentru plăți întârziate.
Nu știu dacă ați făcut un studiu, dar în mandatul trecut știu că s-a prezentat că în foarte multe state membre această directivă nu se aplică și este un blocaj total, mai ales pentru IMM-uri, pentru că cele mai mari creanțe le creează de fapt statul, că nu plătește la 30 de zile și sigur că IMM-urile trebuie să ia bani de la bancă pentru a continua. Apoi, mai vreau să vă întreb dacă considerați că reglementarea, ați spus o piață unică. Eu tot spun că a fi o piață unică înseamnă să mergem după aceleași reguli.
În momentul în care există foarte, foarte multe reguli naționale, evident că nu putem să spunem că mergem după aceleași reguli. Eu care operez într-o țară, dacă vreau să merg ca antreprenor în altă țară și în altă țară și în altă țară, dacă întâmpin variante și regulamente diferite, evident că am costuri diferite. Cum credeți, ați avut un studiu făcut în momentul în care ați spus această piață unică, care sunt acele obstacole și cum prin ce vreți să le eliminați?
Thank you very much for PfE, Elisabeth Dieringer.
Elisabeth Dieringer
Thank you, I will speak in German. Herr Vizepräsident, vor gut einem Jahr, Sie haben es selbst gesagt, haben Sie Ihre Binnenmarktstrategie also vorgestellt mit diesem Versprechen, die zehn größten Hindernisse, die sogenannten Terrible Ten, zu beseitigen. Im April hat die Kommission das mit der Roadmap One Europe One Market bekräftigt, der sich einen Binnenmarkt ohne Lücken bis Ende 2027 vorstellt.
Aber schauen wir nun einmal abseits von all diesen Überschriften auf die tatsächliche Bilanz. Der jüngste Binnenmarktbericht stellt fest, dass von 29 Indikatoren sich nur sechs verbessert haben, ebenso viele haben sich verschlechtert, 15 stagnieren. Die Kommission selbst spricht von einem Plateau. Der Handel zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten wächst nicht mehr, die privaten Investitionen gehen zurück, weil die Kommission immer unrealistischere, ideologisch verbrämte Regeln einführt, können immer weniger Mitgliedstaaten ihnen Folge leisten, was man an den steigenden Zahlen von Vertragsverletzungsverfahren auch sehen kann. Bis in Europa eine gemeinsame technische Norm für ein Produkt festgelegt wird, vergehen heute im Schnitt ca. vier Jahre.
Vier Jahre, in denen ein Betrieb nicht weiß, nach welchen Regeln er produzieren soll und die Europäische Zentralbank beziffert die internen Hürden mit einer Zollwirkung von 65 % bei Waren und bis zu 100 % bei Dienstleistungen. Deswegen eine ganz einfache Frage: Was erzähle ich einem österreichischen Handwerker oder einem mittelständischen Betrieb, was vielleicht bis Ende dieses Jahres noch konkret umgesetzt werden kann?
Danke sehr für ECR, Pierra, äh nein, Gheorghe-Piperea, sorry, I can't read the handwriting.
Gheorghe Piperea
Thank you, Chair, I'm going to speak Romanian.
Noua strategie industrială a Comisiei Europene lansată recent în 2024, Actul pentru accelerarea industriei și așa-numitul Clean Industrial Deal par să fie în contradicție cu ultimii ani de politici asociate Green Deal și de costuri generate de ETS. Politici care au contribuit la relocarea industriei în afara Europei și la falimente industriale în țări de exemplu ca România. Ne pregătim acum să folosim bani publici pentru a alege câștigători și pentru a direcționa investițiile de aici de la Bruxelles. De ce continuă Comisia să creadă că planificarea birocratică poate depăși performanța piețelor când rezultatele ultimilor cinci ani au fost scăderea competitivității, închiderea unor fabrici și creșterea dependenței de importuri?
Având în vedere impactul politicilor Green Deal asupra competitivității industriei europene, consideră Comisia că ar trebui analizată inclusiv posibilitatea renunțării la ETS și Green Deal? Mulțumesc.
Nikola Minchev
Thank you very much, Chair. And thank you, Mr. Executive Vice-President, for being here.
I have two questions and remarks. My first question will be on the removal of the so-called terrible 10 barriers in the single market. I welcome your statement that the Commission is fully mobilized on this. During the last plenary, you stated that around 70% of the necessary legislative changes depend on implementation by national authorities. How does the Commission intend to ensure that Member States effectively remove unnecessary national barriers to the proper functioning of the single market?
The Commission is engaging in dialogue, but this alone does not seem sufficient. So how can we encourage Member States to do their part and unlock the full potential of the single market?
And secondly, on the single market for defense, there are two key issues that stand out: our continued reliance on external suppliers and the fragmentation of defense procurement within the European Union. While a European preference is meant to address the first challenge, it can only succeed if we establish a fair and integrated playing field across all 27 Member States. The second challenge is driven by a persistent lack of mutual trust between the different Member States, where governments tend to prioritize national champions or turn to ready-made foreign solutions instead of pursuing joint procurement and the economy of scale. My question is: what can we do at the level of European institutions to strengthen mutual trust between Member States, and how can we build the political and legal safeguards necessary to encourage joint procurement, strengthen industrial cooperation, and ultimately avoid duplication and achieve economies of scale? Thank you very much.
Thank you so much. For the Greens, Alice, you want to come in or no? Yes. Perfect.
Alice Kuhnke
Thank you, Chair and Commissioner Sefcovic. You have rightly stressed that the simplification should not become deregulation.
At the same time, the revised Waste Framework Directive requires Member States to establish EPR schemes for textiles and footwear by 2027-2028, while the Environmental Omnibus and the upcoming Circular Economy Act aim to simplify and harmonize EPR requirements across the EU. So first, how would you respond to concerns voiced by companies and NGOs that the simplification measures proposed to reduce EPR obligations in the Environmental Omnibus are undermining environmental standards and accountability?
And second, could you elaborate on how the Waste Framework Directive, the environmental omnibus, and the forthcoming Circular Economy Act will work together to harmonize and strengthen the implementation of national EPR schemes for textiles without weakening environmental ambition? And lastly, if you could provide some more information or context onto the Green VAT initiative foreseen for the end of the year, that would be highly appreciated.
Thank you very much. For the Left, Leila Chaibi.
Leila Chaibi
Merci Madame la Présidente. Monsieur le Commissaire, moi j'aimerais vous interroger sur la réforme de la directive sur les marchés publics que vous devriez publier dans les dans les mois qui viennent. Vous le savez, les attentes sont grandes sur ce texte. Les marchés publics, c'est 2000 milliards d'euros et 14 % pardon du PIB européen. Et bon, malheureusement, dans vos différentes interventions sur le sujet, on a compris que vous n'allez pas proposer de conditionnalité sociale ou environnementale.
C'est problématique pour nous que l'argent public participe à niveler vers le bas les conditions de travail, notamment dans le secteur du bâtiment. Mais sur ce point-là, cette position ne nous étonne pas vraiment de votre part.
En revanche, il y a un point sur lequel on avait beaucoup, beaucoup, beaucoup d'attentes vous concernant, c'est sur l'instauration d'une préférence européenne dans les procédures de marchés publics pour que les marchés publics soutiennent l'économie européenne et pas l'économie états-unienne ou l'économie chinoise. On comptait sur vous, on compte sur vous sur ce sujet, mais malheureusement, quand on voit comment vous avez défini l'idée du Made in Europe dans d'autres textes, en particulier dans le règlement sur l'accélérateur industriel, nous avons de quoi être inquiets. Selon votre définition, le Made in Europe inclut les États-Unis, les pays du Mercosur, le Japon, l'Inde, tous les pays avec lesquels l'Union européenne a signé un accord de libre-échange, un accord douanier ou un accord commercial. Bon, vous allez me répondre, mais du coup, une question, et j'espère que vous allez nous rassurer alors sur ce, sur ce point.
Dans cette révision, dans la préférence européenne, si une région souhaite moderniser son parc ferroviaire, est-ce que les géants japonais du secteur entreront dans les critères de la préférence européenne ? Est-ce qu'un géant de l'agroalimentaire brésilien ou néo-zélandais pourra continuer de fournir nos cantines scolaires ? Et troisièmement, étant donné que l'Union européenne et les États-Unis sont partenaires dans le cadre de l'accord sur les marchés publics de l'OMC, est-ce que pour vous, du point de vue de la préférence européenne, Boeing égale Airbus ? Je suis toulousaine, c'est une question très importante pour moi. Merci.
We can answer at the end.
We collect the questions this time. Next time we can do ping-pong again. I think that's probably also more interesting, but like this more people can speak. ESN, no one is here. For EPP, Andreas Schwab.
Andreas Schwab
Well, that will be a long answer for the Commissioner at the end, but if you give me the floor now, I'm very happy to do that. First of all, as Pablo has mentioned, we are very happy to see some realignment with the Brits, because Mr. Harbour is coming back to the Internal Market Committee. But jokes aside, I mean, we all see at the British example how useful the single market can be, and we are therefore proud that we have it. But actions like the One Market, One Europe document seem rather a problem to understand what we do here than helping to implement it. Because everyone is saying, yeah, yeah, we are in favor of the single market, but we don't know exactly what we are talking about.
It was rather by surprise that the 883/2004 regulation was adopted a few days before, and we hope now that the E-declaration will follow suit so that at least two parts of that document come to life. But what we want to deal with, and I think Nicola Minchev has mentioned it, is to overcome this rivalry between Member States' regulations. It's not a rivalry between the Member States; they want to work together, but the problem is that it's so difficult for the Commission and for the European Union to make it better. And therefore we will have the next topic, which is public procurement. I will focus my question over there because there is one school that is saying we need a European preference, and I think we all agree that we need to do more in Europe, we have to become more resilient.
And the others are saying, yes, that's a good idea, but we have to do it in a pragmatic way. My question to you is: what can we do to make this, as the Greens have been mentioning, not an exercise of deregulation, but of simplification?
Speaker 17
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Executive Vice-President. Today, strengthening the single market is a geopolitical necessity. Europe must reduce strategic dependencies, defend fair competition and ensure that trade and economic security policies remain coherent with the effective enforcement of our rules.
In this regard, I welcome your ongoing reflection among commissioners on how the EU should approach China to ensure a genuine level playing field while avoiding unnecessary fragmentation or decoupling. This is also an issue of European sovereignty. European SMEs investing in quality, innovation and sustainability cannot pay the price of unfair competition from non-compliant actors operating in the single market without respecting the same standards, to the detriment of both companies and consumers. So the direction of the single market strategy is correct: fewer barriers, more digitalization, stronger support for SMEs, better integration of services and markets, and crucially stronger enforcement.
And this is what I want to focus on: enforcement. As highlighted by both Letta and Draghi reports, a truly integrated single market requires not only new rules, but also effective enforcement at the very top of the agenda. Otherwise, we risk creating unfair competition and weakening trust in the single market itself. This is particularly visible in e-commerce, where European businesses are too often competing against platforms selling unsafe or non-compliant products, as highlighted by recent findings concerning companies like Temu and Shein.
And today in this committee, we will also discuss the Amazon case. So my two questions are the following. What concrete steps does the Commission intend to take to strengthen the EU actual enforcement capacity, instead of reopening legislation through new omnibus exercises, often, to be frank, without proper impact assessments? I personally believe that stronger European enforcement capacity requires adequate resources for enforcement authorities, but also permanent and structured coordination between the Commission and national authorities, with greater transparency on bottlenecks, timelines and outcomes, so that fragmentation becomes a matter of political accountability rather than administrative inertia. We need leadership on this point, or I think we are just wasting resources and time.
And secondly, I want to ask about the single market sherpas and the stronger political steering of the Single Market Enforcement Taskforce through regular high-level meetings.
You proposed these new governance tools. I'd like to ask if you can update us on where we stand with these measures and how they will concretely improve enforcement across the Union.
Thank you very much. Now for PPE, you want to come in. See, Mr. Schaller-Baross.
Ernő Schaller-Baross
Thank you, Chair. Mr. Commissioner, if you allow me, I would address you in Hungarian, my native tongue. Tisztelt biztos úr, a Bizottság a belső piaci stratégiában maga is rámutat arra, hogy az építőipar, az építőipari termékek szabályozása továbbra is az elégtelen piacfelügyelet egyik leginkább érintett területe. Az egy Európa, egy piac ütemterv nem tartalmaz konkrét kezdeményezést az építőipari alapanyagok és termékek piacfelügyeletének megerősítésére.
Mint bizonyára biztos úr is értesült róla, Nyugat-Magyarországról, külföldről komoly aggodalomra ad okot, hogy egy belső piaci beszerzés, amely az útépítésekhez külföldről szállított azbeszttel szennyezett kőzetanyag felhasználása merült fel. Az eset rávilágít arra, hogy miközben az azbeszt használata az Európai Unióban gyakorlatilag tiltott, az azbeszttel természetesen szennyezett bányászati eredetű anyagok határokon átnyúló kereskedelmének ellenőrzése sajnos nem minden esetben megfelelő.
Ez a közegészségügy szempontjából is problémát jelenthet a belső piacon. Ezért azt kérdezem biztos úrtól, tervezi-e a Bizottság, hogy az azbesztre hajlamos geológiai területekről származó útépítési és építőipari alapanyagok esetében uniós szinten kötelező vizsgálati követelményeket vezessenek be a piacra helyezés előtt, illetve tervezi-e a Bizottság annak felülvizsgálatát, hogy az építési termékekre és a vegyi anyagokra vonatkozó jelenlegi uniós szabályok megfelelően kezelik-e ezeket a potenciális joghézagokat? Tisztelettel várom válaszát.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much. So for the members now the last time to signal if you want to speak. I put myself on the list but in between you can still signal to the secretariat if you want to speak and then I give the floor back to the commissioner. I can only echo what my colleagues Alice Bah Kuhnke and Brando Benifei have said. I think what we don't need is endless discussions about the implication and deregulation and the whole parliament being blocked with I don't know reforms that will not have such a great impact at the end but what we need is a really big push for a single market.
This is I think where our priorities should lie. And I'm happy that the Commission came up with the single market strategy because I have the feeling it has the right balance between realistic and also very concrete because let's be honest it's not so simple to enforce the single market like Andreas Schwab has said. Everyone talks about it all the member states all the heads of state talk about it all the time then it gets much more difficult the more like the more concrete we become or we get. And that's why it requires really a lot of political capital from all of us. That's why I'm really asking the Commission asking all of us let's a little bit get rid of this stupid simplification agenda and let's focus on the real problems and on the real opportunities and that's the single market.
So I was kind of happy when I heard the Commission President announcing the roadmap for the single market. I have the feeling it was a little bit of a big tiger that ended up a little bit smaller in front of the bed as a kind of carpet because it has also a lot of things in it. It's a little bit like a catch all. It's not only about single market it had again simplification it had the FTAs it had this and that and that.
So it's again the same competitive agenda we are already pursuing. So I would have wished for a little bit more push for the single market, but it's not basically your responsibility alone.
I think it's really an entire cross-institutional task that we have to also think seriously about it in the European Parliament, to be very honest. And probably we can also in our committee think about again what we can do in order to put this topic really high on the agenda and focus again on the real challenges and real opportunities. Thanks. Now I have Elisabeth Kossmann.
Elisabeth Grossmann
Danke. I will speak in German. Danke Frau Vorsitzende, Herr Kommissar. Eine der zehn Sünden des Binnenmarkts sind territoriale Lieferbeschränkungen.
Wir haben schon öfters auch darüber gesprochen. Das betrifft kleinere Mitgliedstaaten in besonderem Ausmaß, aber auch Inselstaaten, wie wir erst letzte Woche gelernt haben bei einer Mission auf Martinique, wo zusätzlich zu den Transportkosten auch noch jede Menge Margen dazukommen. Also das betrifft viele Europäerinnen und Europäer, die überhöhte Preise bezahlen müssen und dadurch das Vertrauen in den Binnenmarkt verlieren. Hier adressiert sind hier weniger Mitgliedstaaten, sondern Konzerne in ihren Konzernstrategien und Vertriebspolitiken. Und das macht es wahrscheinlich besonders schwierig.
Aber es wurde hier Besserung in Aussicht gestellt, deshalb meine Frage: Wann können sich europäische Konsumentinnen, die hier betroffen sind, eine Verbesserung und Preisreduktionen erwarten?
Herzlichen Dank. Then Kateřina Konečná.
Kateřina Konečná
Děkuji a budu mluvit česky. Pane komisaři, chtěla jsem vás poprosit vlastně o odpověď na otázku týkající se usnadnění přístupu k informacím v digitální formě. Vy v rámci toho společného trhu velmi často pracujete s tím, že vše bude digitalizováno, odpady, týká se to odpadů, týká se to obalů a dalších věcí. Ale já mám čím dál silnější pocit, že tím diskriminujeme obrovskou část společnosti.
Protože ti, kteří nemají potřebné zařízení, aby si oskenovali třeba QR kód a nebo ty znalosti, tak vlastně úplně vypadávají z toho systému. A já si prostě vlastně se ptám proč. Pokud je cílem Komise, aby označení výrobků byla jasnější a přístupnější, musí být, a na tom se doufám shodneme, přístupné všem.
Chtěla jsem se proto zeptat, když o tom takto mluvíte v dalších a v dalších nařízeních a směrnicích, jestli máte vy jako komise nějaké informace o tom, zda ten tlak na digitalizaci na úkor informací dostupných na papírovém letáčku má právě nějaký dopad na skupinu obyvatel. Protože to, co se nám děje, je, že zvláště lidé ve starším věku, senioři, lidé bez přístupu k internetu nebo bez přístupu k těmto technologiím, tak se vlastně stávají skupinou přehlíženou a diskriminovanou a moc bych si přála, aby komise vždy pracovala jak s tou digitální formou ve všech nařízeních, tak i s tou formou toho práva být offline, nemít to jen digitální. Týká se to i léků a dalších věcí. Je to velmi nebezpečný trend a moc bych poprosila, abyste se nad tím na komisi zamysleli.
Thank you so much. Last but not least, Dirk Hutink.
Dirk Hutink
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
And thank you for also to the Executive Vice-President of course to spend the whole day with us here in IMCO. Very, very nice. I have a question that has to do with everyone thinks that member states would be happy to save money if we would do something together rather than with 27 different countries. And what we realize every time is that in fact it's not that clear. I would give an example of our data hub in the customs authority.
We have a beautiful data hub that could function as a single system. It would save member states a huge amount of money for IT systems and also quite some FTE, quite some people working on those systems, also contracts with IT companies.
What is happening now in the rollout of this data hub is that every member state is fighting to keep their own little data hub inside the big system because they don't want to get rid of those places, they don't want to save money. Mr. Commissioner, the internal market will only function if countries are really, really convinced that they can get some advantage out of it. If they're not even willing to pluck these very easy fruits of efficiency on data, then how the hell are we going to do the rest? And I think it is also not anymore up to us or to the Commission, you've been more than convincing in giving us the data on why this makes sense. The member states, the capitals need to now decide, do they really want this efficiency or are they happy to basically stay small and weak together?
And then if that's the answer, then we can also simply all go home. But I think how will these sherpas provide us with an answer to this issue, because I think this is fundamentally blocking a lot of the good things that we can do.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much, and with all these interesting questions and food for thought, the floor is back to you, Mr. Commissioner.
Stéphane Séjourné
Merci beaucoup et merci pour l'ensemble de vos de vos questions. J'ai peut-être peut-être pour que ça soit plus didactique et que vous compreniez bien la stratégie des Terrible Ten, reprendre toutes vos questions qui en réalité se regroupent dans les dix barrières que nous avons ciblées. Je dis bien dans les dix puisque en réalité, comme je le dis en introduction, chaque barrière contient un volet européen de la législation européenne et donc un devoir pour la Commission de réaliser un certain nombre de bougés, européaniser des réglementations, mieux harmoniser, mieux faire fonctionner un certain nombre de marchés et de l'autre côté un certain nombre de devoirs que doivent réaliser également les États membres pour chacune de ces barrières.
Si je reprends la première barrière par exemple, qui est l'obstacle à la création et à l'exploitation, la gestion des entreprises transnationales, nous avons proposé le 28ème régime. Et donc c'est aussi de notre responsabilité maintenant de pouvoir constituer un socle peut-être imparfait pour certains, qui va probablement des fois trop loin pour d'autres, mais qui nous permet en termes de compétitivité, d'attractivité internationale de répondre à cet engagement.
Du côté des entreprises, la Commission fait des procédures d'infraction dès que ou des signalements dès qu'à partir du moment où on a des procédures qui sont contraintes qui contraignent encore plus l'installation des entreprises et et et le marché intérieur. De l'autre côté, la numéro deux que nous avons ciblée, c'est la complexité et là ce sont les dix omnibus de simplification du côté de la Commission que nous avons fournis. Je sais qu'un travail de simplification est en cours également dans beaucoup d'États membres au niveau national, des fois même au niveau régional pour compléter les marchés intérieurs des États membres eux-mêmes qui ont des fois eux-mêmes des barrières entre entre les entre les régions.
Mais nous devons réussir à avoir une forme de synergie entre l'agenda de simplification européen, l'agenda de simplification national que nous devons et surtout l'agenda de simplification européen doit avoir des répercussions sur l'agenda de simplification national dans les législations dans un deuxième temps pour pouvoir transposer les modifications que nous avons faites et également tirer des enseignements sur le point de vue réglementaire et dans l'application très concrètement des règles que nous avons simplifiées.
Le troisième, la troisième terrible ten, c'est le manque d'appropriation des règles UE par les États membres, donc le manque de transposition souvent, le gold plating, le manque de transposition. Et ça, nous avons des infractions sectorielles et tous les jours nous ouvrons des infractions sectorielles par manque de transposition. On peut vous fournir y compris la liste à jour de l'ensemble des infractions qui sont soulevées.
C'est vrai qu'à partir du moment où on a une règle collective au niveau européen, que certains États membres délibérément ne mettent pas en place la réglementation européenne pour avoir un avantage comparatif sur un secteur ou une partie de l'économie, doit être plus sévèrement sanctionné et nous devons accélérer les procédures d'infraction sur ce sujet-là. La quatrième barrière, c'est la reconnaissance limitée des qualifications professionnelles. J'en ai parlé dans le cadre du travail que nous demandons aux États membres dans le cadre du SMET, donc de la task force avec les sherpas. Mais il y a un travail aussi qui va être proposé par Mizzatou, donc les deux volets à la fois de réglementation européenne qui sera proposée sur ce volet-là, je l'ai dit en introduction, et en même temps le travail qui est fait avec les États membres.
La cinquième, c'est le manque de standardisation. Là, c'est le Product Act qui arrive et qui doit nous permettre d'avoir une vraie stratégie de standardisation, aller plus vite, y compris prendre la compétence quand il le faut au niveau européen quand la standardisation n'est pas assez efficace et de redevenir leader, y compris au niveau européen. Et c'est une question aussi de compétitivité. En réalité, la standardisation pour notre économie. La sixième barrière qui a été ciblée, ce sont les divergences sur les règles de packaging, des déchets.
Et ça, c'est le Circular Economy Act que nous préparons, où des définitions des déchets sont différentes d'État membre en État membre.
Et donc nous ne pouvons pas à la fois avoir un modèle économique de circularité si nous n'avons pas des définitions communes et donc une européanisation de notre stratégie de circularité.
Tout ça, ça sera proposé, y compris dans le texte qui va être proposé et la responsabilité des producteurs également avec les logos qui sont apposés par les États membres, souvent de manière unilatérale pour pouvoir identifier un certain nombre de produits dans la circularité. Je pense parce que je connais le logo Triman français typiquement qui est le seul uniquement en France et qui aussi empêche une partie des produits qui sont logotés d'être commercialisés en Belgique du fait de cette réglementation uniquement propre par exemple à la France.
Tout ça c'est un effort que nous demandons à la fois aux États membres et en même temps nous apportons des réponses européennes. Sur les dernières pour aller plus vite, le manque d'harmonisation sur la conformité des produits et donc ça sera la surveillance de marché et le Product Act que j'évoquais. Les barrières dans les secteurs des services, c'est le Construction Act et Delivery Act qui vont arriver également. Les obstacles au détachement, c'est l'e-déclaration qu'évoquait le député Schwab et qui nous permettra normalement de conclure rapidement sur ce sujet-là et ça sera un point déjà d'avancement qui sera intéressant.
C'est ce que nous demandons aux États membres dans les prochains mois, dans les prochaines semaines. Et puis les contraintes d'approvisionnement territorial, qui est la dixième. Donc c'est bien la preuve que c'est bien pris en compte par la Commission, où là nous avons une consultation qui est en cours et qui se terminera bientôt pour délimiter notre champ d'action et toucher réellement la particularité de ce sujet-là pour éviter d'avoir une règle qui règle des problèmes où il n'y a pas de problème, si je résume les choses. Donc on veut vraiment focaliser sur ce que nous rapportent à la fois le privé et les États membres. Donc nous allons agir là-dessus à partir du moment où la consultation est en cours et nous devrons avoir des retours de cette consultation bientôt.
Tout ça pour vous dire que sur les dix barrières, sur les dix barrières, on a des actions engagées au niveau de la Commission sur les dix. On a des actions engagées vis-à-vis des États membres sur les dix. Et donc on avance petit à petit, c'est un travail de méthode avec les États membres, c'est un travail y compris d'européanisation d'un certain nombre de règles du côté de la Commission européenne.
Mais je voudrais que vous soyez convaincus que on n'a jamais autant avancé en deux ans sur ce volet-là au niveau de la Commission que les dernières années. Et donc il y a une vraie prise de conscience que la stratégie du marché intérieur est également un des piliers de ce que j'évoquais tout à l'heure pendant l'audition sur l'accélérateur industriel de notre compétitivité européenne. Maintenant, pour répondre à deux trois sujets sur lesquels j'ai pas que j'ai pas balayé avec les Terrible Ten.
D'abord vous dire que sur le late payment qui est un sujet qui est important puisque 73 % des entreprises se plaignent des retards de paiement et notamment des PME. Tout est bloqué aujourd'hui au Conseil et les discussions n'avancent absolument pas. On essaie donc de de voir comment on peut répondre avec une nouvelle négociation à cette demande mais le probablement il va falloir revoir le texte, revoir le bon équilibre et éventuellement voir avec les États membres qu'est-ce qui est aujourd'hui acceptable ou pas.
On a une directive et la députée Grapini le disait, on a une directive qui est actuellement en cours. Nous avions modernisé cette directive pour en faire un règlement dans l'objectif justement de plus de marché intérieur. Et c'est aussi le règlement qui bloque au Conseil. Donc vous voyez que y compris les chefs d'État et de gouvernement veulent souvent plutôt au niveau politique des règlements aux directives, mais quand on arrive dans le détail, les gouvernements souvent nous redemandent une directive pour pouvoir avoir des modifications, pouvoir faire des transpositions et avoir des des aménagements du droit européen. Donc c'est c'est la directive je pense qui bloque les choses sur le Late Payment, il faudra regarder comment on fait.
Sur le marché intérieur, bon c'était l'objet de la précédente audition, mais je redis ici, notre objectif est un de simplifier drastiquement pour les pouvoirs adjudicateurs.
Aujourd'hui souvent ils se remettent sous l'ombrelle du prix uniquement parce que la complexité du droit fait que d'un point de vue juridique c'est mieux pour une mairie, une région, un organisme public, même une entreprise publique de sécuriser son marché sous l'ombrelle du prix sans prendre en compte l'ensemble des clauses qui sont disponibles dans les marchés publics. Il nous faut donc un gros acte de simplification pour donner aussi des perspectives d'utilisation d'autres instruments de qualité sur les questions sociales, environnementales aussi qui existent déjà qui sont sous-exploitées dans les marchés.
Donc on a, on peut améliorer les choses, je pense, d'un point de vue, et là c'est de la bonne simplification qu'il faut faire, mais on peut améliorer les choses en donnant de la visibilité juridique aussi et de la sécurité juridique à ceux qui passent les marchés quand ils utilisent des clauses qui ne sont pas uniquement les clauses du prix. Le deuxième objectif pour moi dans cette révision des marchés publics, c'est de faire une sorte de trade-off entre plus de concurrence et plus de transparence des offres au niveau européen avec une plateforme de publication des offres au niveau européen pour que l'ensemble des entreprises puissent avoir accès à l'information qu'il y a un marché public qui est lancé dans tel et tel pays.
C'est pas toujours le cas aujourd'hui. Les offres publiques d'achat sont des fois dans des publiés dans des journaux officiels régionaux, nationaux, des fois payants pour pouvoir y accéder. Et donc je souhaite qu'il y ait un vrai travail de de de transparence des offres publiques, des offres de marché public au niveau européen.
Mais le corollaire de ça, c'est qu'on puisse utiliser y compris les marchés publics comme un outil pour notre politique industrielle. Ça me renvoie à l'audition précédente sur l'accélérateur industriel. Et là, je vous renvoie à ma réponse parce que je ne vais pas refaire l'audition. Mais on n'a pas d'accords commerciaux avec les États-Unis. De ce que je sais, on a à peu près une quarantaine de pays qui sont couverts par un accord commercial avec une partie de marché public, un chapitre marché public dedans.
Donc c'est pas les 90 pays que j'entends partout systématiquement ici. Et dans ces quarantaines de pays où on a un engagement international avec eux sur les marchés publics, on a décidé de vous proposer un critère de réciprocité de l'ouverture de ces marchés publics pour être sûr que quand c'est ouvert chez nous, c'est ouvert chez eux également. Et donc ça redescend les partenaires du Made in Europe largement en dessous des 20. Donc je vous invite à travailler les textes et à regarder quels sont les critères que vous pouvez vous rajouter en tant que législateur. Nous, on est prêts à discuter de l'ensemble du scope si possible.
Je reviens pas sur l'ensemble de comme j'avais une question précise sur ce sujet-là. Donc votre question précise entre Airbus et Boeing ne se pose pas. Et d'ailleurs, elle ne participe enfin ni le scope de l'accélérateur et nous n'avons pas d'accords commerciaux avec les États-Unis. Comme ça, il n'y a pas d'accord non plus sur les marchés publics. Donc la question se pose même pas.
Voilà en gros pour faire le tour de la question. Et évidemment, en termes de monitoring, Madame la Présidente, moi je suis très preneur de vos initiatives aussi envers les États membres si vous en avez pour y compris en termes de synergie pour pouvoir associer nos forces et nos initiatives au sein de la Commission et au sein du Parlement pour pouvoir faire bouger les choses.
Je vous proposerais y compris un monitoring de nos engagements qui soit lisible y compris pour les parlementaires et le grand public. Je sais que ça a très bien marché sur le rapport Draghi au détriment de la Commission souvent et en termes de pourcentage, mais nous pourrons le faire de manière assez facile sur le marché intérieur vis-à-vis des Terrible Ten.
Je vous ai fait en quelque sorte déjà la review de tout ce que nous avions fait et c'est assez facile à monitorer, y compris à suivre pour suivre les choses et encore une fois à disposition de la commission. Je voudrais en profiter également pour saluer Malcolm Harbour qui est ici présent et lui dire toute ma sympathie de le retrouver ici dans cette commission parce que vous avez je crois une histoire y compris au parlement avec ce sujet et cette commission.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much for being here a second time and spending so much time in your committee. And I think we definitely probably will can all reflect on the fact on how we're going to also probably monitor the implementation, how we also could put a little bit of pressure or have a good conversation with the Member States in order to make sure that we advance on the single market. Thanks so much for everyone who took part at the debate and this concludes agenda item 12. So we quickly say goodbye and then we come to the agenda item 13, the scrutiny session with Amazon.
Okay, dear colleagues, let's continue with the agenda item 13. As you know, we are inviting on a very regular basis different e-commerce platforms in order to make sure that they comply with our very important EU legislation, but of course also to identify potential gaps. We're happy that we have Amazon here today with us and also our colleagues from the Commission. So we do it in our regular way: first the Commission gets the floor and then we give the floor to the representatives of Amazon.
Thank you so much for coming, for accepting our invitation. And then the members can ask questions and put forward remarks. So the Commission has in total six minutes, so you can probably try to be concise, the three of you, and probably you can also decide on your own order. So probably just hand over to the Commission.
Speaker 24
Good afternoon everybody. Thank you. We'll try to be very succinct. So, Madam Chair, honorable members, distinguished participants, as we always mention here, Europe cannot accept a single market where unsafe and non-compliant products reach consumers simply because they are sold online. And let us be clear today, with Amazon present, this is not a marginal issue, this is systemic.
The Commission has just submitted the draft impact assessment for the European Product Act, which comprises the revision of the Market Surveillance Regulation. It has submitted it to the Regulatory Board of Scrutiny.
And the evidence we have gathered is telling, and it confirms what this Parliament has been saying for some time. The current regulation was designed for traditional supply chains with identifiable EU-based economic operators. And that logic still works for much of our economy. However, it is no longer the logic of how most goods reach European consumers. Today, we know the rapid growth of e-commerce imports that are increasingly bypassing those actors with approximately 12 million low-value consignments entering the Union every day.
So, we know first, the accountability is often absent, and where there is no operator in the Union, there is no one to be held accountable. And that's to the clear detriment of the EU businesses. Then, the scale of non-compliance is not only significant, but is also worsening.
The impact assessment shows that more than half of products tested by national authorities are found non-compliant. Public authorities and European businesses alike tell us that without EU action, online sales will only intensify and the level playing field for compliant businesses will deteriorate further. A third issue is the structural gap in one Member State that would become a risk for the whole Union, and non-compliant goods do not stop at the internal border.
And this situation is not sustainable. To the platforms in this room, including Amazon, we acknowledge your role in the European economy and we acknowledge your engagement. But scale creates also responsibility. Voluntary measures and pledges have not delivered systemic results. If illegal products can still be found easily, repeatedly and at scale on such services, then the system is not working.
And when the system is not working, the regulation must step in.
That is the reason why, through the impact assessment and with the future European Product Act, we are proposing a balanced and layered reform package that is built around three clear objectives. So first, we need to modernize the regulatory toolkit for a digital and global supply chain, including clear responsibilities for authorized representative and online marketplaces, of course considering the Digital Services Act. We are going to strengthen enforcement capacity across Member States by creating efficiency gains. And we are going to improve also enforcement for cross-border cases, so that systemic Union-wide infringement gets a Union-wide response. This, all these elements will feed into the European Product Act that the Commission will propose by end of September.
Because this is the heart of the matter. Compliant European business is the one who invest in safety, in testing, in CE marking, are today undercut by those who do not. And restoring trust in the single market means restoring that level playing field. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Yes. So allow me to to continue from the consumer protection perspective, from DG JUST perspective.
So first, as regard the implementation through the CPC, the Consumer Protection Cooperation legislation. So as you know, we have a number of ongoing actions under the CPC against Temu, against Shein, and we want to process them as quickly as possible. But we also see that the current coordination system is not strong enough to deal with large-scale problems. It takes too long. When a trader does not cooperate with the CPC network, it requires to open formal proceedings at national level, resulting in 30 parallel proceedings.
So this lowers our deterrence. And this is why in the consumer agenda, we propose to revise the CPC regulation in the first quarter, in the fourth quarter of 2026. We want to make the rules more effective, deterrent and possibly to centralize enforcement in specific cases at EU level to address EU-wide problem. From a product safety perspective and building on what Felicia said, it's very important for us to have effective market surveillance at national level.
So the enforcement of the General Product Safety Regulation is key. And a very important point, as was also mentioned by Felicia before, is that online marketplaces correctly indicate the EU responsible person in their online listing to ensure effective market surveillance. So this is really a key element for us. You might know that the Consumer Safety Network devoted its first product safety sweep, that is to say a coordinated screening exercise to check listings' compliance with the GPSR.
And we are now looking at the sweep again, another sweep to be conducted this year to ensure compliance, to measure progress in compliance. But beyond the respect of formal requirements, what is really important is that the products themselves offered on this platform are safe. And of course, the responsibility to ensure that products are safe is the responsibility of the national market surveillance authorities and the GPSR.
And what we should be doing as a Commission is to support those national market surveillance authorities. And we are doing that through coordinated actions for the safety of products, the so-called CASP. And we did that for toys, childcare articles, etc. What we have done as well is to support national authority with access to the e-surveillance tool to scan the interface of online platforms for dangerous products already notified to the EU Safety Gate. And also to push the platform to take voluntary commitment under the Product Safety Pledge Plus that Amazon here present is also a signatory.
So what is really important in the context of the European Product Act, where DG GROW, our colleagues in DG GROW are in the lead, is to preserve the alignment between the market surveillance for harmonized and non-harmonized products and to strengthen all the tools for enforcement. And on that, I will then stop and pass the floor to my colleague.
Yeah, now thanks, but the Commission time is now over. Probably the colleague can speak at the end because you had in total six minutes because we also want to hear from Amazon. I'm sorry.
So probably the colleague can come in at the end. So now I welcome the representatives of Amazon. I have Amber Bashouri, Director of EU Public Policy, and Thomas Winkler, Director Consumer Trust. Welcome, and the floor is yours also for around six to seven minutes, and then we have the members to come in.
Amber Beshouri
Thank you. Dear Chair, honorable members, fellow speakers, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for your invitation to address this committee today. My name is Amber Bashouri, and I'm responsible for Amazon's policy in Europe for consumer product and sustainability. I've been working on these issues for 25 years.
We welcome this opportunity to exchange views on how to ensure protection for European consumers through safer products, better controls, and more robust enforcement. These issues matter deeply to me, and they matter to Amazon, because we know that customer trust is built on safety and compliance. Let me start with some brief context on Amazon's presence and commitment in Europe. We've been here for 28 years, today employing over 150,000 people across the EU and helping more than 100,000 EU-based small businesses reach customers across Europe and beyond.
Europe is also home to some of our most exciting innovations. Alexa, for example, was developed at our research and development center in Gdansk, Poland. And on sustainability, we're putting investment behind our ambitions. We use AI to choose the right size box for each order, which has helped us to eliminate over 2 million tons of unnecessary packaging worldwide since 2015. And when it comes to product safety, it's important to understand that Amazon operates across the entire product value chain.
We are a manufacturer, making devices like the Echo and Kindle, as well as own-brand essentials like coffee and diapers and nappies. We're also a retailer, an e-commerce marketplace, and a logistics provider. And these many roles give us a unique end-to-end perspective on what works and what doesn't when it comes to delivering for EU consumers alongside you. I want to underline that we take our compliance responsibilities extremely seriously because it's the right thing to do for our customers and in the long term, it makes business sense.
I'll now hand over to Thomas if I may to explain our compliance work in more detail.
Thomas Winkler
Thank you Amber. My name is Thomas Winkler and I lead the teams in Europe who ensure that every product on Amazon is safe, authentic and compliant. We are scientists, engineers, risk managers and software developers based in Germany, in Italy, in Romania, in Luxembourg and elsewhere in the Union and we work hard to ensure a trustworthy shopping experience on our stores. Having been with Amazon myself for 20 years, I can attest, customers shop with us because they trust the products in our store. There are no shortcuts to customer trust.
You can only earn it the hard way, by doing hard things well, over and over again, something that's especially true in product compliance. And when we fell short in the past, customers moved elsewhere to shop. Worldwide last year, we invested over 1 billion euros to ensure a trustworthy shopping experience in our stores. Let me outline how we put this into practice. Firstly, every seller that registers with us is verified, and thereafter we monitor in real time using technology their activity across every product, order, and interaction.
In fact, we implemented Know Your Business customer verification over a decade before the DSA made similar checks mandatory. Second, before a product is listed, we verify it. We review safety and compliance documentation, and for high-risk products, such as toys, we work directly with safety laboratories, with accredited laboratories to ensure product testing. And we do not simply comply with laws, we innovate on top of them. We embraced the General Product Safety Regulation and informed and educated hundreds of thousands of small businesses, manufacturers, and importers of their upcoming obligations months before GPSR went into effect.
And we developed our own custom in-house imaging technology in warehouses across Europe to verify that the physical products comply with GPSR and to provide customers with safety information ahead of purchase. Last year alone, we verified 12 million products using this technology. And third, when something, somewhere goes wrong, we act proactively and decisively. When a few months ago an Australian authority issued an alert on a handful of contaminated play sand products contaminated with asbestos, we temporarily removed thousands of play sand products from Amazon in Europe and we started testing products. And where we found similar contamination, we informed EU authorities to ensure such products are removed also from other online and offline retailers and not just from Amazon.
One thing that we consistently hear from small businesses who sell on Amazon and elsewhere is the following: Amazon, you have the tightest product policies and the strictest product controls. That is something we're proud of because it's all about protecting EU consumers. Thank you.
Amber Beshouri
Thank you Thomas. To conclude, we strongly believe that European consumers should be safe and well protected wherever they buy, whether online or offline. We are aligned with you on that objective and acknowledge the important work that you did in this committee through your recent resolution on product safety. We regularly engage with governments and regulators who share our desire to work collaboratively. We participate in voluntary product safety pledges with governments worldwide and proactively engage with regulators across Europe.
And as we approach the upcoming legislative reforms, there are three observations I'd like to leave with you. Firstly, we share your views on the importance of scaling enforcement. Rules can only appropriately protect consumers if they are properly enforced.
Secondly, we agree that responsibility must be taken for the products that are sold to European consumers, and that requires strengthening the authorized representative rule. And thirdly, we believe we need to retain Europe as a hub for innovation. This includes innovating through the digital product passport, making it fit for e-commerce, and also the single source of truth for product compliance. This is good for consumers who know what's in their products, and good for authorities who know if products comply. We welcome your questions on what we can do better and how we can work together to deliver safe, compliant, and authentic products to European consumers.
Thank you.
Thank you so much for being here with us.
Now we start with the members. I had already two people who asked the floor, Nicola Minchev and then Ms. Grapini. And then the others have to tell me.
Nikola Minchev
Thank you very much, Chair. I have two questions, one to the representatives of the Commission and one to the representatives of Amazon. So the DSA places obligations on online marketplaces to trace their traders, the so-called "know your business customer" principle, to enhance transparency and reduce the risk of unsafe and counterfeit products being offered by third-party sellers. This means that Amazon and other platforms must collect and verify the identities of the third-party business sellers.
Nonetheless, a lot of dangerous or fake goods are still present and being offered for sale. My question to the representatives of the Commission is whether the Commission has found any specific flaws in the way platforms like Amazon are implementing their trader traceability obligations under the DSA. And I would also like to ask the Amazon representatives if they could provide more information on the current level of verification needed before a seller may enter a new marketplace, especially for merchants operating from outside the Union, and whether Amazon keeps an eye on compliance after onboarding.
And if so, can you clarify whether this is based on random checks or on a more systematic monitoring mechanisms? Thank you very much.
Thank you, Maria Grapini.
Maria Grapini
Mulțumesc, voi vorbi în limba română. Ascultând ce a spus Comisia și ascultând ce a spus Amazon, în calitate de consumator, aș crede că sunt total apărată. Comisia a explicat că avem DSA, că avem regulamente. Amazon ne-a garantat cu oameni care lucrează de 20 de ani, cu specialiști, că faceți în așa fel încât toate produsele sunt bune. Și atunci întreb, eu ca și consumator, de ce avem totuși un procent atât de mare de produse neconforme?
Cine nu face ce trebuie?
Aplicarea mecanismelor de control la intrarea în piața Uniunii Europene sau platforma care nu se asigură că toate produsele care se pun... Eu nu spun că totul e rău, dar ca toate produsele care se pun în această platformă să aveți garanția că produsele sunt conforme, adică răspund standardelor Uniunii Europene.
Tot ce intră în piața Uniunii Europene, mai ales că sunt produse periculoase, așa cum sunt jucăriile sau cosmeticele sau alte produse de spălare și așa mai departe. Întrebarea mea către Comisie este: ce vă încurcă dacă avem acum, cu reglementările pe care le avem și o să avem și noul regulament vamal care sper să sprijine îmbunătățirea controlului, dar ce vă încurcă acum ca să putem să protejăm consumatorii și până la urmă și producătorii din piața internă? Iar pe Amazon, așa cu un grad mare de sinceritate, să ne spuneți ce puteți face ca să scădeți produsul neconform care se apare și ajunge la consumator prin platforma dumneavoastră. Mulțumesc.
Leila Chaibi
Merci, Madame la Présidente. Merci pour vos interventions. Merci à la Commission. Merci au représentant d'Amazon. Je suis ravie qu'Amazon puisse venir rendre des comptes devant notre commission.
Cela fait un certain nombre de mois que nous évoquons ici les problèmes posés, et à juste titre, par les plateformes telles que Shein ou AliExpress. Et on oublie souvent de dire qu'Amazon est coupable des mêmes choses qu'AliExpress et Shein. Il y a eu de la vente de poupées pédopornographiques sur la plateforme Amazon, notamment sur sa place de marché.
Alors je comprends l'intérêt pour les douaniers, notamment dans le cadre de nous avons travaillé pendant des mois sur la réforme, des années même pour celles et ceux qui y ont participé depuis des années, mais sur la réforme du code des douanes. Et il y a dans la réforme du code des douanes une volonté de pousser à l'installation d'entrepôts en échange, en échange d'entrepôts en Europe pardon, en échange de frais de gestion plus faibles. Ça a un intérêt pour les douaniers parce qu'ils n'ont pas besoin de contrôler plein de petits colis, mais directement dans un entrepôt les produits sont centralisés, ça leur facilite le travail de fouille et d'enquête.
Certes, ça tout le monde l'admet, c'est beaucoup plus simple que d'avoir des colis individuels. Mais il ne faudrait pas que le modèle d'Amazon devienne la norme en ce qui concerne les conditions de travail. Ces conditions de travail, elles sont dénoncées par un certain nombre de syndicats. Et venir s'implanter en Europe, respecter son marché unique, c'est aussi respecter le modèle social, les accords collectifs, le droit du travail. On a eu une audition en commission EMPL, là je parle avec ma casquette, ma double casquette IMCO-EMPL, fin janvier.
Les représentants d'Amazon sont venus témoigner en commission EMPL et on a été inquiétés parce que vous nous aviez dit, vous les représentants d'Amazon, que non, vous ne voulez pas vous engager à respecter les accords collectifs qui existent en Europe dans le cadre du dialogue social.
C'est important pour nous le dialogue social ici. De la même manière, en France, Amazon a été condamné à une amende de 15 millions d'euros pour non-respect du RGPD dans le cadre de sa gestion algorithmique dont il a été prouvé que la surveillance excessive, eh bien, portait atteinte au respect des données des travailleurs. Donc, est-ce que vous comptez respecter le droit du travail européen, mettre fin à ces pratiques managériales ? J'ai pas parlé là du de la discrimination syndicale aussi, mais c'est important le droit de se syndiquer en Europe.
Est-ce que vous comptez mettre fin à ces pratiques désastreuses dans les entrepôts que vous avez ouverts en Europe ou dans ceux que vous allez ouvrir ? Merci.
Thank you very much. Christel Schaldemose.
Speaker 30
Thank you very much, Chair, and also thank you to Amazon for being here today. It's interesting and good for us to have a chance to discuss directly with you. I have a couple of questions. First and foremost, you're saying that you are removing a lot of unsafe products, but you also tell us that you have a very strict system with verification of sellers, etc.
So how come you have unsafe products at all? Why is it that it's still needed for you to get rid of the unsafe products? Isn't there anything in your system that doesn't really work then if it doesn't automatically work like that? The second thing is that I think it'd be interesting to hear if you would agree that, for instance, both the customs reform, which is there is a political deal, and the product act coming up, would make the online marketplace liable like a seller. Is it your wish as well?
I'm not really sure that I understood whether you wanted that or you wanted another system. And thirdly, can you promise that in the future the products bought online on Amazon will be safe for every European consumers? Thank you very much.
Virginie Joron
Merci, Madame la Présidente. Bienvenue et merci pour votre présentation. Moi, je vois que mes collègues ont parlé du sujet qui aujourd'hui nous obsède, c'est la conformité des produits et la sécurité, et vous avez partiellement répondu. Moi, je veux ouvrir un autre sujet qui remonte de plus en plus, c'est la pré-autorisation que vous mettez en place sur Amazon, qui bloque des sommes d'argent.
Et de plus en plus on voit que c'est une pratique que vous utilisez. Et donc, et donc là c'est au regard du CPC, la protection des consommateurs. On voit que finalement il y a pendant plus de 31 jours minimum voire plus, vous bloquez l'argent. Et c'est vrai que comme les sommes, les gens qui vont souvent sur Amazon, et bien c'est quand même souvent un panier moyen. Cette méthode commence à être, comment dire, malaisante pour les consommateurs.
Et j'ai envie de vous dire, même pour vous, vous savez très bien que la concurrence est de plus en plus rude pour les plateformes du numérique. Vous avez Chine, vous avez Temu. Et donc un, pour les consommateurs, ça devient une contrainte. En plus, difficulté d'accéder au service Amazon en ligne ou par internet pour que vous débloquiez les sommes. Est-ce que vous envisagez une procédure plus transparente, plus facile et peut-être éviter ce type de contrainte pour les consommateurs où en fait finalement vous bloquez de l'argent pendant un certain temps et finalement vous poussez aussi certains consommateurs à aller sur d'autres plateformes du numérique ?
Merci.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you. Then I put myself on the list. So also similarly to some of the colleagues, if I talk to consumer organizations or read their reports on investigations and tests, there is still a too high number of unsafe products also on Amazon. And they criticize also like with any other or a lot of other e-commerce platforms that there's no ex-post check. So basically the all the products are being put online and then there's only a very, very tiny number that is also being checked by you.
So isn't wouldn't it be better to check or make sure that the products are complying before putting them online, question one.
And then question two, what I hear from market surveillance authorities that it takes too long and it's also not a systematic removal if there is an identified product that is not complying. So what are you exactly doing to make sure that then the product is not resurfacing in another country, in a different picture and so on and so on, because this is a regular problem being reported by market surveillance authorities. Then I have Pablo.
Pablo Arias Echeverría
Thank you very much, Chair.
I'm going to speak in Spanish. Bueno, lo primero muchas gracias a Amazon por estar aquí y como dicen pues rendir cuentas. Bueno, vamos a ver, yo sí que quiero poner una cosa clara y es ha dicho la representante de Amazon hacemos lo que hacemos porque tiene sentido comercial. Bueno, es posible. Si fuera por sentido comercial probablemente no cumplirían con nuestras normas.
También lo hacen porque tenemos unas normas y yo creo que Amazon ha cambiado desde hace unos años hasta aquí porque hemos ido poniendo una serie de normas que lo que hacen es poner cierto orden para que esos productos que sigue algunos habiendo que no cumplen con nuestras normas o que pueden ser potencialmente peligrosos pero que la regla general es que se intenta, digo se intenta cumplir. Esa es la regla general desde la perspectiva del que les habla. A mí les voy a decir que me gusta Amazon y me gusta como marca y como consumidor. Se ganan nuestra confianza, sí, y también se ganan la confianza de muchas empresas. A lo mejor no de todas, pero sobre todo para las pymes tienen también una buena reputación, sobre todo aquellos que venden sus productos a través de esta plataforma y eso es una realidad.
Eso es una realidad. Algo estarán haciendo bien y por tanto yo no estoy aquí para defender a Amazon, no les represento y no estoy en eso. Pero la lo que sí que quiero decir es que la plataforma tiene que tener las plataformas en general, también Amazon, tienen que tener más responsabilidad sobre esos productos que venden y que pueden ser potencialmente peligrosos. Pero yo como usuario de Amazon, que no lo soy ni de Temu, ni de Shein, ni de AliExpress, con Amazon no suelo tener problemas y tampoco los tienen, por ejemplo, los consumidores más vulnerables a los que puedo representar, que puedan ser mis propios hijos. Y por tanto, pues hombre, sí que tienen que hacer un esfuerzo porque eso no les hace del todo buenos, aunque sí mucho mejores y por tanto ponerles en la misma cesta o compararles con estas tres plataformas de otros países me parece que es exagerado y que no es justo.
Entonces simplemente quiero ponerlo encima de la mesa. Que tienen que hacerlo mejor, por supuesto. Que nosotros tenemos que hacerlo también mejor, no hay ninguna duda y hay que pedirles más responsabilidades pero dicho esto no es justo poner en la misma balanza creo que no lo es a Temu, Shein y AliExpress con el intento por el cumplimiento de las normas por parte de Amazon. Insisto, lo tienen que hacer mejor, sí. Gracias.
Thank you so much. I think that was all the members, so I give the floor back to Amazon first.
Amber Beshouri
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to thank all of the distinguished members for their questions. I heard many comments about the importance of the work ahead of us, and we're keen to engage with you. Let me first start on the questions around product safety. There was a specific question about liability as we approach the upcoming revision of the product safety regulation, particularly through the Product Act.
We believe that all actors across the product value chain should take the appropriate level of responsibility.
That means that we firmly believe that manufacturers should be ultimately responsible for their products, but that's not to say that marketplaces shouldn't take a responsibility within that value chain. And we've advocated for that for a number of years and will continue to do so. We believe that we have effective and innovative systems in place, and I heard some of that today, that really focus on all products. But mistakes can happen, as you've identified today, and I think it's about having scalable systems that are able to innovate and pick up on those either bad actors or criminals in the system, but also bad products that come into the European Union.
I think that when we think back to our systems, we're talking about proactive and reactive mechanisms. For example, know your customer, educating sellers on the appropriate level of understanding of European legislation and how to comply with that, educating consumers on proper use of products. We've worked with 34 different consumer organizations around the world on 71 different consumer safety topics in seven different countries to help them understand how to use products better and ensure that the misuse part of those mistakes doesn't happen.
We've also worked, as was stated, on the product safety pledge and through into the general product safety regulation, for example, ensuring that consumers have good access to customer service when things do go wrong and making sure that we can pick up on those signals, whether again from those frontline customer service agents so that we can scale our systems to understand the risks, but also working with consumer authorities, market surveillance authorities proactively and indeed with many members here and with the European Commission. But that's not enough. And I think we would agree with you there that we do need to innovate together to go beyond. And one example is the mandatory testing of toys that we've instigated on our platform to make sure that toys that come into Europe have a test report by an accredited lab.
Now the challenge there is this is a scaling a scaled system. And so we sometimes receive some questions about what what is that additional cost for small businesses, for example, and what is the capacity of those testing houses for brands who also want to use that capacity. And we want to work through those problems together with you. It's ultimately about collaboration. So I wanted to say that we take our responsibility extremely seriously.
As we approach the product act, we're extremely keen to think about the role of that authorized representative and how they can be meaningful and reliable and verified in the system. And how enforcement can be smarter, how we can pick up those gaps in enforcement and help together to think about digital solutions to scale that enforcement. And also again how we can think about the digital product passport as a source for good.
Let me, if you may chair, just briefly hand over to my colleague Thomas for the specific questions on Digital Services Act and then I'll try to come back on a couple more questions. Thank you.
Thomas Winkler
Thank you. Thank you Amber. While we pay attention to which companies should be covered under the DSA, we remain firmly aligned with the spirit of the DSA and in fact we complied with several of its aspects years before the DSA, such as with trusted flagger mechanisms. We agree with the transparency and accountability that the enforcement of the DSA brings.
On the point noted earlier on KYBC or know your business customer checks, yes, we do those for all sellers and for sellers from all countries. But we actually go beyond what's prescribed there in the law. We build our own in-house custom tools. We do things such as video verification, facial recognition. We check the ownership structure of companies.
We even go as far as using document forgery software and other things to really detect hundreds of risk signals from every seller or trader that's attempting to register with us.
These controls are regularly audited and we refine them to improve them. These checks apply to all countries or traders from all countries. And the activity monitoring we do thereafter once they start listing on our website is not random. In fact, it's 100% in real-time monitoring using technology for all sellers and all of their activity. And one last point really quick on the on your point about ex-post checks.
Absolutely agree, prevention is the right way to tackle this. Of all the products we suppress, we suppress about 100 times more products for proactive reasons based on our own findings relative to reacting to a DSA notice or something like that.
And nearly all of our proactive suppressions happen before a single unit is sold. Thank you.
Amber Beshouri
Thank you, Thomas. I also had a specific question on labor. Amazon is a responsible employer that provides quality jobs. We employ more than 150,000 people in the EU, direct employment, and pay up to more than 12% more than the minimum wage or have a collective bargaining agreement where applicable across the EU. And our employees have the right to join a union.
I know that issue was discussed in another committee, but just to state that here as well.
I'm not sure if I still have time to address a couple more points. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thomas spoke about the post-checks on products, but we also are effectively monitoring a number of recall sites across the EU to understand those signals across the value chain. And I spoke a little bit about that earlier, hearing from consumers directly through our customer service teams who are really on the front line and picking up those signals, but also in our regular multiple times a day monitoring of recall sites. This is an area that's particularly effective online, and as we approach the upcoming legislative reform, quite helpful to think about, I think.
You know, we know who our customers are, and we know what products they've bought, and we're able to quickly, in under 24 hours, send out notifications so that those customers either receive an email or a pop-up or on their user account are able to see which products are subject to a recall.
It's actually happened to me. I received a recall notification and and the system was quite effective in able to flag that to me so that I could get the redress I needed. And actually in the there was a reference to the safety pledge in in I believe the European Commission's intervention. When we think about KPI 3, the key performance indicator 3, where we're required to to report, identifying identical products is extremely important because often there is a signal when we see a recalled product that identical products may have a similar safety concern. And we hear anecdotally that we perform 40% better than our peers on identifying those identical products.
I want to bring my intervention to a close there by thanking you again for the opportunity to exchange with the committee today. Our systems, while advanced, are really never done improving, and we welcome smart, effective, and future-proof regulation and look forward to engaging with you on that and other issues in the future, particularly with this committee, but also with the European Commission and other actors in the value chain as we work together to create a framework which keeps European consumers safe. Thank you.
Thank you for your answers. Now I give the floor back to the Commission.
Speaker 33
Thank you very much. So the first, we got one question which was about what does the Commission do to prevent the dissemination of illegal and non-compliant products. So obviously my colleagues already spoke about this, but what is important that the the large number of packages coming in calls for a holistic approach, which means that we should use all the tools in our toolbox which are which was, sorry, excuse me, which was set out in the the e-commerce communication which my colleagues also mentioned. So the Digital Services Act is one of the tools in this toolbox and the DSA tackles the systemic risk of dissemination of illegal products and it complements the product-by-product enforcement of customs and market surveillance. So this complementarity is very important.
The DSA is unique in the sense because its enforcement can be scaled to meet the incredibly large volume of products imported from third countries because we know that the growth has been phenomenal. And the DSA allows us to look at the platform as a whole, so not package by package, product by product, and take a risk-based approach. And also we mentioned before the ongoing legislative reviews and it is very important to maintain this complementarity between the DSA and product-by-product market surveillance on the future legislation.
And on our side with the DSA, we are continuing with our enforcement. We have three open cases, as you know, Temu, AliExpress and Shein. And we are also monitoring compliance of all very large online marketplaces with the know-your-business-customer requirements of the DSA. And regarding Temu, as possibly some of you know, last week on the 28th of May, the European Commission issued a fine of 200 million to the platform under the DSA because the company failed to diligently identify, analyze and assess the systemic risks of illegal products being offered on its platform and the resulting harm to consumers in the European Union.
And investigations into other issues of Temu's platform, such as the mitigation measures which they have in place to mitigate the risk of the dissemination of illegal products and its recommender system and access to researchers is ongoing. Many thanks.
Speaker 24
Maybe just to address Mrs. Grapini's question about what exactly is missing from the angle of the product framework. As we have reiterated here many times, we do indeed have a loophole in our system with respect to authorized representatives, the EU-established economic operator that represents a third-country manufacturer sending to the EU the product, and which currently is untraceable, or we have evidence of this type of economic operators that are fictitious or they do not exist in practice. Just to give you an example, for the impact assessment, we could not even quantify the number of those. So this is one area that we try to address, by which we try actually to close this loophole and to make sure that in the EU, the market surveillance authorities have a counterpart to discuss and also to hold liable for the product that they represent to bring in the EU.
But of course, there are also the other issues that Madam Chair has raised about the fact that once we identify market surveillance authorities identify a non-compliant product, the same non-compliant, the same type of product with the same image appears on the platform in multiple millions of items, but with different coordinates. And this is where actually we have a huge bump, I would say, in the road in the sense that it's very difficult to have evidence for those type of products to remove them. And it's really remains at the voluntary action of the platforms to take them down or not.
So these are aspects that we are considering for the European Product Act. Thank you.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much. I think very, very valuable input. DG Justice is fine with that? Okay, perfect. Thank you so much again for the Commission to be here, answer our questions, but also outline what your plans are.
I think it's very important. And thanks also to Amazon. I think you heard from our critical questions that we put a lot of importance on this topic here in this committee in the European Parliament and hope that, yeah, in the future, not too far in the future, we really protect our consumers and make sure that there's no unsafe products anymore on e-commerce platforms.
Thank you so much for being here today, for coming. This concludes agenda item 13 and we come to agenda item 14. Suspending the application of the rules on the appointment of an authorized representative for extending producer responsibility for batteries and waste batteries and packaging and packaging waste, where our rapporteur for the opinion is Klára Dostálová. And today we have the opportunity of discussing the draft opinion. The deadline for tabling amendments is the 4th of June 24.
As you probably all know, but I repeat it, ENVI is the responsible committee and we are providing an opinion under Rule 57. So I give first the floor to the rapporteur for presenting the draft opinion.
Klara Dostalova
Thank you, Madam Chair. Dear colleagues, we are here today to consider the European Commission's proposal to suspend a specific obligation under two significant pieces of EU legislation: the Batteries Regulation and the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation.
Specifically, the proposal seeks to suspend until 2035 the requirement for producers established outside the European Union to appoint an authorized representative for the purpose of extended producer responsibility. On the surface, this may appear to be a straightforward administrative simplification. And indeed, we acknowledge that reducing unnecessary burden on economic operators is a legitimate and important goal. However, when we look more carefully at what this proposal actually does, and crucially, what it does not do, then a different picture emerges.
Let us be clear about what is what is at stake. The authorized representative is not a bureaucratic formality. It is the essential link between a non-EU producer and the national extended producer responsibility system. It is the point of contact that gives Member States' competent authorities the ability to identify who is responsible to collect producer fees, to verify compliance, and to take enforcement action when obligations are not met.
Remove that link and you remove a fundamental tool of control. You create enforcement gaps across the single market, gaps that would be felt most acutely in high-volume product categories like batteries and packaging, which sit at the very heart of our circular economy ambitions. The Commission's proposal does not acknowledge the risk, which is why it asks Member States to ensure traceability and enforcement through alternative means. But this raises an obvious question: what alternative means?
The proposal offers no answer. It delegates the problem back to Member States without providing the tool, the guidance, or the legal certainty needed to address it. This is not simplification, this is a transfer of an unresolved problem. Beyond the substance, there is a deeper concern about timing and legislative coherence. The Commission has already announced that comprehensive EPR reform will be delivered in 2026 as part of the forthcoming Circular Economy Act.
If systemic reform is coming, why adopt a narrow, temporary suspension now? The answer in our view is that there is no compelling justification for doing so.
The introduction of a suspensory measure in advance of the broader package risks introducing legal uncertainty. We are also concerned about the signal this approach sends. Each time sector-specific measures are adopted in isolation, for batteries today, packaging tomorrow, perhaps textiles or electronics next, the regulatory landscape becomes more fragmented, more difficult to navigate, and ultimately less effective.
Businesses operating across sectors do not benefit from a patchwork of partially suspended obligations. National competent authorities do not benefit from an enforcement framework riddled with exemptions. And our circular economy targets are not served by a regulatory environment that is increasingly hard to understand and apply. For these reasons, rejection of this proposal is the appropriate course of action, not because simplification is wrong, it is right and necessary, but because this proposal does not deliver it.
A temporary suspension of one obligation without addressing the structural architecture of the EPR framework is of very limited legislative value. The case for rejection is not a case against simplification. It is a case for doing simplification properly in a manner that preserves enforcement, protects the single market, and delivers the legal certainty that businesses, Member States, and consumers deserve. The comprehensive reform is coming. Let us be patient, let us be rigorous, and let us get it right.
Thank you.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you very much.
And now we do the round of shadows and also any other member who wants to come in, just let me know. We start with EPP, Andrzej Halicki.
Andrzej Halicki
Szanowni państwo, I will be speaking Polish. Thank you. Okay, I wait. Dziękuję pani Dostalovej za opinię i przedstawienie argumentów za nią stojących. Ufam jednak, że mamy możliwości konstruktywnej pracy nad tekstem i całkowite odrzucenie tej propozycji nie jest najlepszym rozwiązaniem.
Uważam, że przede wszystkim należy doprecyzować zakres rozporządzenia.
Proponowane wyłączenie w żadnym wypadku nie powinno dotyczyć producentów z państw trzecich, dla nich obowiązki powinny pozostać te same. Ponadto uważam za zasadne rozpatrzenie, czy proponowane wyłączenie nie powinno być stosowane jedynie w stosunku do małych i mikroprzedsiębiorstw, gdyż duzi gracze już teraz w większości wypracowali swój system operowania i nie widzę tutaj potrzeby uchylania dla nich tych przepisów.
Oczywiście prawdą jest, że Komisja Europejska zapowiedziała rewizję pakietu o gospodarce cyrkularnej. Zapewne nie tylko kwestia rozszerzonej odpowiedzialności producenta, ale też wiele innych będą w niej całościowo zaadresowane. Musimy więc oczywiście zadbać o harmonizację z tym przyszłym aktem proponowanych tutaj rozwiązań. W tym kierunku na pewno będą szły zaproponowane przeze mnie poprawki. Wierzę, że to podejście, jako bardziej konstruktywne niż odrzucenie projektu, znajdzie poparcie wśród moich koleżanek i kolegów.
Liczę na dobrą współpracę i dialog w celu wypracowania rozwiązań zrównoważonych i dobrych dla naszych małych firm. Dziękuję.
Elisabeth Grossmann
Vorsitzende, werte Kolleginnen und Kollegen. Die Kommission begründet diesen Vorschlag mit dem Ziel der Vereinfachung. Wenn man aber die Folgenabschätzung genauer liest, dann bleibt fraglich, ob dieses Ziel tatsächlich erreicht wird. So räumt die Kommission selbst ein, dass die erwarteten Einsparungen nur sehr schwer zu quantifizieren sind und auch auf zahlreichen Annahmen beruhen.
Und gleichzeitig bleibt unklar, welche Auswirkungen die vorgeschlagene Aussetzung auf die Durchsetzung bestehender Verpflichtungen haben wird. Und für mich ist es deshalb entscheidend: Vereinfachung darf nicht mit Deregulierung verwechselt werden. Die erweiterte Herstellerverantwortung ist ein zentrales Instrument der Kreislaufwirtschaft. Und sie funktioniert nur dann, wenn die Mitgliedstaaten Hersteller identifizieren, Beiträge einheben und auch gegen Trittbrettfahrer wirksam vorgehen können.
Und genau darauf weisen auch mehrere Mitgliedstaaten in ihrem Non-Paper ausdrücklich hin. Und dort wird auch darauf verwiesen, dass nicht beitragende Hersteller bereits heute erhebliche finanzielle Ausfälle verursachen. Die Benennung eines Bevollmächtigten ist keine bloße Formalität. Sie ist ein wichtiges Instrument zur Marktüberwachung und auch Rückverfolgbarkeit und die Durchsetzung des Verursacherprinzips. Und besonders kritisch sehe ich die Situation bei Herstellern aus Drittstaaten.
Das Europäische Parlament hat sich erst Ende letzten Jahres im Rahmen seines Initiativsberichtes zum New Legislative Framework dafür ausgesprochen, die Verantwortlichkeit von Wirtschaftsteilnehmenden aus Drittstaaten zu stärken und klare Ansprechpartner innerhalb der Union sicherzustellen.
Während wir in anderen Politikbereichen versuchen, Vollzugslücken im grenzüberschreitenden E-Commerce zu schließen, sollten wir hier nicht neue schaffen. Deshalb bin ich der Meinung, dass Hersteller aus Drittstaaten weiterhin verpflichtet bleiben müssen, eben einen Bevollmächtigten zu nennen. Ich verstehe aber gleichzeitig auch die Sorgen der Kleinstunternehmen, dass die administrativen Anforderungen und Kosten durchaus eine unverhältnismäßige Belastung darstellen können.
Und wenn die Kommission selbst feststellt, dass insbesondere Kleinstunternehmen von einer Entlastung profitieren würden, dann sollte die Maßnahme auch ganz gezielt auf diese Unternehmen beschränkt werden. Und deshalb werde ich entsprechende Abänderungsanträge einbringen, die die vorgeschlagene Aussetzung auf Kleinstunternehmen beschränken und eine strikt befristete Ausnahme auch vorsehen, die idealerweise mit dem Inkrafttreten eines Circular Economy Act in Einklang gebracht wird. Also mein Ziel ist hier ein ausgewogener Ansatz und hier Marktüberwachung, Produzentenverantwortung und freier Wettbewerb, das soll in Einklang gebracht werden mit der Reduzierung unnötiger administrativer Belastungen.
Und wie gesagt, die eigentliche Reform der erweiterten Herstellerverantwortung gehört eigentlich in den angekündigten Circular Economy Act. Dort müssen wir die Fragmentierungen abbauen, Harmonisierung voranbringen und wo erforderlich auch Vereinfachung schaffen.
Thank you very much. ECR is not here. Renew Sandro Gozi.
Sandro Gozi
Thank you. Thank you Chair. We as a general position we support the objective of this battery and packaging legislation and also the concept of the extended producer responsibility. So we welcome this discussion because I think that this discussion and the work in the next days and weeks will must help us to better understand the outstanding issues and to better understand the real practical difficulties which are invoked for the suspension concerning businesses and national administration.
Because I mean the idea of the proposal to authorize of appointing an authorized representative aims to facilitate compliance and enforcement in the single market. And we want to improve in any aspect compliance and enforcement in the single market. So I mean apparently the reason behind this proposal of suspension is that the necessary systems are not fully in place and that immediate implementation application of the existing rules could risk creating additional costs.
This should be better explained, honestly, before we can take a clear position and a clear decision. In any case, any temporary suspension in our view should be fully aligned with the objective, with the enforcement provisions of the Circular Economy Act, because our objective remains to have a fully operative extended producer responsibility system, which is consistent in the Union and which ensures a level playing field for all producers in the single market.
So I mean, what I would like to emphasize and to insist on today that any suspension, if it is really necessary, which is not clear, must be strictly limited in time, clearly justified and accompanied by a roadmap for full implementation. And I would also like to add that we would need in this case a very strong monitoring to ensure that this flexibility that we would introduce does not lead to fragmentation and loopholes in the enforcement between the different Member States. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you so much, very interesting debate. I think the other smaller groups don't have any shadows here, so no member, and that means I give the floor to the Commission and welcome Carolina Da Cunha and Paulina Voltes from DG ENV.
Yes, good afternoon and thank you very much for all these very interesting comments. So we would like to thank the committee for presenting those comments which will inform of course our way forward on this proposal.
Speaker 42
I would just like to recall, to have in mind the aims and the objectives of this suspension and maybe put it a little bit also in the context. So our main goal was to offer an immediate administrative burden relief to companies that have to comply with this obligation to appoint an authorized representative in order to fulfill the extended producer responsibility obligations in several Member States. Because, of course, in the internal market, when you place products on the market, they freely circulate.
Then EPR systems, they are still national. So if you then market your products, then often you have to comply with several different systems. And then you have to also appoint different authorized representatives in different Member States in different languages. If you are a small and medium enterprise, that indeed can pose a market entrance barrier even for some such companies. So the suspension was aiming to provide that administrative burden relief immediately.
This authorized representative, the obligation to nominate it has been identified as an upfront cost, as I said, that can represent an entry barrier for the single market for companies.
And we estimated that suspension of this obligation could result in savings to businesses of around 300 million euro per year. We understand the concerns about enforceability, also heard concerns about possible free riding increase as a result of this proposal. So I would like to recall that for ensuring compliance and also eliminating of elimination of free riding, what is extremely important is the detection first of all of non-compliance.
And those companies that want to avoid complying with the obligations will not make recourse to authorized representative in the first place, they will just not do it. So, what we are addressing are companies that do comply, that do appoint this authorized representative and want to reduce administrative burden for them. We are indeed working on a more comprehensive reform under the Circular Economy Act that was recalled by several members of the Parliament, and there we are also looking at tools to improve compliance and to harmonize the rules, to digitalize those systems which still remain national, to increase their interoperability and cooperation, so that we believe will strengthen the enforcement in that respect.
And then, of course, once there is detection of non-compliance, it will remain the obligation of member states to take steps and to ensure that producers comply with the obligations.
So there will have to be some systems of cross-border cooperation between member states. Indeed, in the Omnibus we had not proposed ready solutions. We left it to member states' discretion to to work out such systems. They exist already in other areas, notably if you look at speeding fines, for instance, there is cooperation and exchange of information. So there are means to do that, but we refrained from proposing a solution on on that.
So let me just recall that also in the context of third country producers that was that was an important point raised. There we retain a possibility for member states to oblige third country producers to appoint the authorized representative where this is currently foreseen. So we do not change this possibility for member states to require mandatory authorized representative and EU producers who wish so may still appoint the authorized representative but the proposal suspends the obligation. So member states should not force those producers to appoint the EU producers. And finally I think it's very important to stress that all the other EPR obligations for producers remain in place.
And these are obligations such as registration, the payment of the fees to then finance the waste management systems in the member states, because this is why we have those extended producer responsibility schemes in the first place, reporting, etc. So the only thing that we propose to suspend is indeed this obligation to have a mandatory authorized representative for EU producers. So we take careful note of your comments, and they will inform, of course, further work on this proposal, but also on the Circular Economy Act, which is not far away from discussion either. So thank you very much.
Thank you very much for commenting and for being here. I give the floor now for some concluding remarks for our rapporteur.
Klara Dostalova
Thank you very much. I would like to thank my colleagues for their comments. I am confident that together we will find a systematic solution that is suitable for reaching a compromise rather than the ad hoc temporary measure that their proposal represents. Thank you.
Thank you very much and I wish the negotiation team a lot of success on this file like always. And if there's not any other business I can just announce the next meetings but you're all aware of them. So this week on the 4th of June we have a common hearing with the House Committee and then we meet again as IMCO Committee on the 24th and 25th of June. Have a very good afternoon.
Speaker 1
Good morning, everyone. I would like to welcome you to this IMCO meeting. I would like to start by checking if we have a quorum. Yes, we do. So, we can start the meeting.
I would like to inform you that the meeting is being webstreamed and that the interpretation is available in all languages except for Irish. I would also like to remind you that the meeting is being held in a hybrid format, so some of our colleagues are joining us remotely. I would like to ask you to use your microphone when you speak and to turn it off when you are finished. I would also like to ask you to speak slowly so that the interpreters can follow you. We have a very busy agenda today, so I would like to start with the first item on the agenda, which is the adoption of the agenda.
Are there any comments on the agenda? I see no comments, so the agenda is adopted. The second item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the meeting of the 25th and 26th of October. Are there any comments on the minutes? I see no comments, so the minutes are approved.
Good morning, everyone. I would like to welcome you to this meeting of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. I would like to ask you to take your seats so that we can start. I would like to inform you that the meeting is being webstreamed and that interpretation is available in 22 languages. I would also like to remind you that the meeting is paperless and that you can access the meeting documents via the e-meeting application.
We will now proceed to the adoption of the agenda. The draft agenda was circulated to you. Are there any comments or objections to the agenda? I see none. The agenda is adopted.
We will now proceed to the approval of the minutes of the meetings of the 22nd and 23rd of May 2023. Are there any comments or objections to the minutes? I see none.
Good morning, everyone. I would like to open the meeting of the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection. I would like to ask you to take your seats. And I would like to ask the colleagues who are not members of the committee to leave the room. Thank you very much.
I would like to welcome you all. And I would like to start with the adoption of the agenda. The draft agenda was distributed. Are there any comments on the agenda? I see no comments.
The agenda is adopted. Then we have the chair's announcements. First of all, interpretation. Interpretation is available in the following languages: German, English, French, Italian, Dutch, Danish, Spanish, Portuguese, Finnish, Swedish, Czech, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak, Slovenian, Bulgarian, Romanian, and Croatian. I would like to remind you that the meeting is being webstreamed.
And I would like to remind you that the meeting is paperless. The eMeeting application is available on your tablets or laptops to access the meeting documents. Then I would like to inform you about the newsletter. The new issue of the IMCO newsletter, number 153, is available. Then we have the approval of the minutes of the meetings.
The minutes of the meeting of the 22nd and 23rd of May 2024. Are there any comments on the minutes? I see no comments. The minutes are approved.
Speaker 1
Good morning, everyone. I would like to welcome you to this IMCO meeting. I would like to ask you to take your seats. We have a very busy agenda today. I would like to start by checking the quorum.
We have a quorum. So we can start our meeting. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Are there any comments or objections to the agenda? I see none.
The agenda is adopted. The second item is the Chair's announcements. I would like to inform you that the meeting is being webstreamed. Interpretation is available in all languages. I would also like to remind you that the deadline for amendments for the report on the Single Market for Services is today at 12:00.
The third item is the approval of the minutes of the meetings of the 25th and 26th of September. Are there any comments or objections to the minutes? I see none. The minutes are approved. The fourth item is the report on the implementation of the Services Directive.
I would like to give the floor to the rapporteur, Mr. Schwab.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, colleagues. The Services Directive is one of the most important pieces of legislation for the Single Market.
Speaker 44
Okay, good morning, everyone. Welcome to the IMCO Committee meeting of today. We have a full agenda, so I propose to start immediately. First of all, I would like to ask you to check if you have your voting cards with you, because we will have a vote at the end of this morning session. And then, I would like to inform you that the meeting is being webstreamed and that interpretation is available in the following languages: German, English, French, Italian, Dutch, Danish, Spanish, Portuguese, Finnish, Swedish, Czech, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak, Slovenian, Bulgarian, Romanian, and Croatian.
On va commencer par l'adoption de l'ordre du jour. Est-ce qu'il y a des commentaires ? Non ? L'ordre du jour est adopté. On passe aux communications de la présidence.
Je voudrais vous informer que la réunion est retransmise en direct sur internet. L'interprétation est disponible dans toutes les langues. On va maintenant passer au point 3 de l'ordre du jour. L'approbation des procès-verbaux des réunions. Est-ce qu'il y a des objections ?
Non ? Les procès-verbaux sont approuvés. On passe maintenant au point 4. Rapport sur les négociations interinstitutionnelles en cours. Je donne la parole à Monsieur Cavazzini pour le premier rapport.
Merci Madame la Présidente. Je voudrais vous faire un bref compte-rendu du dernier trilogue. Nous avons bien progressé sur les points techniques. Il reste encore quelques points politiques à régler. Notamment sur la question de la protection des consommateurs.
Nous espérons conclure lors du prochain trilogue. Merci.
Merci Monsieur Cavazzini. Est-ce qu'il y a des questions ? Non ? On passe au point suivant. Le point 5.
La mise en œuvre de la directive sur les services. Je donne la parole à la Commission pour une présentation.
Speaker 44
Good morning, everyone. I would like to welcome you to this IMCO meeting. I would like to ask you to take your seats so that we can start. I would like to inform you that the meeting is being webstreamed and that interpretation is available in German, English, French, Italian, Dutch, Danish, Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, Finnish, Swedish, Czech, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak, Slovenian, Bulgarian, Romanian, and Croatian. I would like to remind you that the meeting is being held in a hybrid format.
I would like to ask you to use your voting cards for the votes. I would like to ask you to use your microphones when you speak. I would like to ask you to speak slowly so that the interpreters can follow you. I would like to ask you to turn off your mobile phones. I would like to ask you to respect the speaking time.
I would like to ask you to use the electronic voting system for the votes. I would like to ask you to use your voting cards for the votes.
Good morning, everyone. I'd like to welcome you to this meeting of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. I'd like to welcome all the members and the staff and the interpreters. I'd like to start by asking if there are any changes to the agenda. I see no requests for changes, so the agenda is adopted.
I'd also like to announce that the meeting is being webstreamed and that interpretation is available in all the official languages of the European Union. I'd like to move on to the first item on the agenda, which is the approval of the minutes of the meeting of the 22nd and 23rd of May. Are there any comments on the minutes? I see no comments, so the minutes are approved.
Bonjour à tous. On va commencer. Il y a pas de problème. On va commencer. On va commencer.
On va commencer. On va commencer. On va commencer. On va commencer. On va commencer.
On va commencer. On va commencer. On va commencer. On va commencer. On va commencer.
On va commencer. On va commencer. On va commencer. On va commencer. On va commencer.
On va commencer. On va commencer. On va commencer. On va commencer. On va commencer.
On va commencer. On va commencer. On va commencer. On va commencer. On va commencer.
On va commencer. On va commencer. On va commencer. On va commencer. On va commencer.
On va commencer. On va commencer. On va commencer. On va commencer. On va commencer.
On va commencer. On va commencer. On va commencer. On va commencer. On va commencer.
On va commencer. On va commencer. On va commencer. On va commencer.
Good morning, everyone. I'm very happy to see you all here. I'm very happy to see that we have a full house. I'm very happy to see that we have a lot of people online as well. I'm very happy to see that we have a lot of people from the Commission, from the Council, from the Parliament, from the Member States, from the industry, from the NGOs, from the academia, from the media.
I'm very happy to see that we have a lot of people from all over Europe. I'm very happy to see that we have a lot of people from all over the world. I'm very happy to see that we have a lot of people who are interested in the internal market and consumer protection. I'm very happy to see that we have a lot of people who are interested in the future of Europe. I'm very happy to see that we have a lot of people who are interested in the future of the internal market.
I'm very happy to see that we have a lot of people who are interested in the future of consumer protection. I'm very happy to see that we have a lot of people who are interested in the future of the European Union. I'm very happy to see that we have a lot of people who are interested in the future of the world. I'm very happy to see that we have a lot of people who are interested in the future of humanity. I'm very happy to see that we have a lot of people who are interested in the future of the planet.
I'm very happy to see that we have a lot of people who are interested in the future of the universe.
Speaker 45
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the IMCO Committee meeting. I would like to ask you to take your seats. We have a very busy agenda today. I would like to start by welcoming our guests.
We have with us today the Commissioner for the Internal Market, Thierry Breton. Welcome, Commissioner. We also have with us the representatives of the Spanish Presidency. Welcome to you as well. Before we start with the first item on the agenda, I would like to inform you that the meeting is being webstreamed.
I would also like to remind you that the interpretation is available in all the official languages of the European Union. We will start with the first item on the agenda, which is the adoption of the agenda. Are there any comments or objections to the agenda? I see none. The agenda is adopted.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.