ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 336

European flag  

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 65
2 September 2022


Contents

page

 

 

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
2021–2022 SESSION
Sittings of 17 to 20 January 2022
TEXTS ADOPTED

1


 

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

 

RESOLUTIONS

 

European Parliament

 

Thursday 20 January 2022

2022/C 336/01

European Parliament resolution of 20 January 2022 on violations of fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong (2022/2503(RSP))

2

2022/C 336/02

European Parliament resolution of 20 January 2022 on the situation in Kazakhstan (2022/2505(RSP))

8

2022/C 336/03

European Parliament resolution of 20 January 2022 on the political crisis in Sudan (2022/2504(RSP))

14

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

European Parliament

 

Thursday 20 January 2022

2022/C 336/04

European Parliament recommendation of 20 January 2022 to the Council and the Commission following the investigation of alleged contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to the protection of animals during transport within and outside the Union (2021/2736(RSP))

20


 

III   Preparatory acts

 

European Parliament

 

Thursday 20 January 2022

2022/C 336/05

European Parliament decision of 20 January 2022 on the numerical strength of the standing committees (2021/3026(RSO))

35

2022/C 336/06

European Parliament decision of 20 January 2022 on the nomination of Jan Gregor as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C9-0405/2021 — 2021/0802(NLE))

37

2022/C 336/07

European Parliament decision of 20 January 2022 on the nomination of Marek Opiola as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C9-0406/2021 — 2021/0803(NLE))

38

2022/C 336/08

European Parliament decision of 20 January 2022 on the nomination of Mihails Kozlovs as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C9-0407/2021 — 2021/0804(NLE))

39

2022/C 336/09

European Parliament decision of 20 January 2022 on the nomination of Jorg Kristijan Petrovič as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C9-0408/2021 — 2021/0805(NLE))

40

2022/C 336/10

P9_TA(2022)0006
European Medicines Agency ***I
European Parliament legislative resolution of 20 January 2022 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a reinforced role for the European Medicines Agency in crisis preparedness and management for medicinal products and medical devices (COM(2020)0725 — C9-0365/2020 — 2020/0321(COD))
P9_TC1-COD(2020)0321
Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 20 January 2022 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2022/… of the European Parliament and of the Council on a reinforced role for the European Medicines Agency in crisis preparedness and management for medicinal products and medical devices

41

2022/C 336/11

European Parliament resolution of 20 January 2022 on the Commission delegated regulation of 29 September 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2019/817 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards determining cases where identity data may be considered as same or similar for the purpose of the multiple identity detection (C(2021)05056 — 2021/2913(DEA))

42

2022/C 336/12

European Parliament resolution of 20 January 2022 on the Commission delegated regulation of 29 September 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2019/818 of the European Parliament and Council as regards determining cases where identity data may be considered as same or similar for the purpose of the multiple identity detection (C(2021)05057 — 2021/2912(DEA))

43

2022/C 336/13

European Parliament decision to raise no objections to the Commission delegated regulation of 7 December 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council with additional requirements for certain types of intervention specified by Member States in their CAP Strategic Plans for the period 2023 to 2027 under that Regulation as well as rules on the ratio for the good agricultural and environmental condition (GAEC) standard 1 (C(2021)09115 — 2021/3008(DEA))

44

2022/C 336/14

European Parliament decision to raise no objections to the Commission delegated regulation of 7 December 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 of the European Parliament and of the Council with rules on paying agencies and other bodies, financial management, clearance of accounts, securities and use of euro (C(2021)09119 — 2021/3009(DEA))

46

2022/C 336/15

Amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 20 January 2022 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (COM(2020)0825 — C9-0418/2020 — 2020/0361(COD))

48


Key to symbols used

*

Consultation procedure

***

Consent procedure

***I

Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading

***II

Ordinary legislative procedure: second reading

***III

Ordinary legislative procedure: third reading

(The type of procedure depends on the legal basis proposed by the draft act.)

Amendments by Parliament:

New text is highlighted in bold italics . Deletions are indicated using either the ▌symbol or strikeout. Replacements are indicated by highlighting the new text in bold italics and by deleting or striking out the text that has been replaced.

EN

 


2.9.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/1


EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2021–2022 SESSION

Sittings of 17 to 20 January 2022

TEXTS ADOPTED

 


I Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

RESOLUTIONS

European Parliament

Thursday 20 January 2022

2.9.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/2


P9_TA(2022)0011

Violations of fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong

European Parliament resolution of 20 January 2022 on violations of fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong (2022/2503(RSP))

(2022/C 336/01)

The European Parliament,

having regard to all its previous resolutions on Hong Kong, in particular those of 8 July 2021 on Hong Kong, notably the case of Apple Daily (1), of 21 January 2021 on the crackdown on the democratic opposition in Hong Kong (2), of 19 June 2020 on the PRC national security law for Hong Kong and the need for the EU to defend Kong Kong’s high degree of autonomy (3), of 18 July 2019 on the situation in Hong Kong (4) and of 24 November 2016 on the case of Gui Minhai, jailed publisher in China (5),

having regard to its previous resolutions on China, in particular those of 16 September 2021 on a new EU-China strategy (6), of 20 May 2021 on Chinese countersanctions on EU entities and MEPs and MPs (7), of 12. September 2018 on the state of EU-China relations (8) and of 16 December 2015 on EU-China relations (9),

having regard to the statements by the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) Josep Borrell of 20 December 2021 on the Legislative Council Election held on 19 December 2021, and of 9 June 2021 on the changes to Hong Kong’s electoral system, to his declaration on behalf of the EU of 11 March 2021 on Hong Kong’s electoral system, and to all his other statements and declarations on the situation in Hong Kong,

having regard to the statement by the European External Action Service (EEAS) Spokesperson of 23 June 2021 on the closure of Apple Daily’s Hong Kong operations,

having regard to the statement by the EEAS Spokesperson of 21 October 2021 on the expulsion of democratically elected district councillors and the shrinking space for civil society,

having regard to the 11th EU-China Strategic Dialogue of 28 September 2021 between VP/HR Josep Borrell and Chinese State Councillor/Foreign Minister Wang Yi,

having regard to the remarks by European Council President Charles Michel after the EU-China leaders’ meeting of 14 September 2020,

having regard to the joint statement of President Michel and President von der Leyen on defending EU interests and values in a complex and vital partnership following the 22nd EU-China summit that took place on 22 June 2020,

having regard to the Basic Law of the Special Administrative Region (SAR) of Hong Kong, which was adopted on 4 April 1990 and entered into force on 1 July 1997,

having regard to the Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) of 19 December 1984 on the Question of Hong Kong, also known as the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which was registered by the Chinese and British Governments at the United Nations on 12 June 1985,

having regard to the Council conclusions of 28 July 2020 on Hong Kong,

having regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, and the concerns raised by the UN Human Rights Committee in its List of Issues, of 26 August 2020 in relation to the fourth periodic report of Hong Kong, China,

having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948,

having regard to Rules 144(5) and 132(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas the promotion of and respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law should remain at the centre of the long-standing relationship between the EU and China in line with the EU’s commitment to uphold these values in its external actions and China’s expressed interest in adhering to them in its own development and international cooperation;

B.

whereas Hong Kong is bound by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and has a legal obligation to respect the rights to freedom of information, expression and association, as well as to guarantee due process; whereas Hong Kong will soon be reviewed on the fulfilment of its obligations under the covenant;

C.

whereas between 1 July 2020 and the end of 2021, police in Hong Kong arrested or ordered the arrest of at least 139 people in relation to the National Security Law (NSL); whereas at of the end of 2021, 94 people were formally charged, 60 of whom were in pre-trial detention; whereas peaceful political expression has been disproportionately restricted and even criminalised under the NSL; whereas prominent activists, such as Chow Hang-tung, have been charged for encouraging citizens to light candles to commemorate the victims of Tiananmen Square and whereas the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China disbanded after the authorities used the annual Tiananmen candlelight vigil the group had been organising for 30 years as evidence of it ‘endangering national security’; whereas the NSL flagrantly violates the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ principle and the Sino-British Joint Declaration;

D.

whereas the political opposition in Hong Kong was effectively obliterated following the arrests of 55 people under the NSL on 6 and 7 January 2021, most of whom were pro-democracy lawmakers and activists;

E.

whereas on 17 June 2021, 500 police officers raided the premises of Apple Daily, taking away computers and documents, including some containing journalistic material, and arresting five newspaper executives; whereas all were charged with ‘colluding with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security’ under the NSL; whereas on 23 June 2021, Apple Daily announced it was closing down after 26 years; whereas charging the pro-democracy activist and former owner of Apple Daily, Jimmy Lai, and six former Apple Daily journalists with ‘conspiracy to distribute seditious material’ is a further assault on press freedom in Hong Kong;

F.

whereas on 29 December 2021, 200 police officers raided the office of Stand News, taking away its computers and documents, and arresting seven people, all of whom were senior or former senior staff members of the company, for conspiracy to publish seditious publications; whereas Stand News was shut down immediately; whereas Hong Kong’s online media outlet DB Channel has stopped operating in the city, as its detained co-founder Frankie Fung awaits trial under the NSL; whereas Citizen News, another pro-democracy online media outlet, recently announced its closure, citing a ‘deteriorating media environment’;

G.

whereas Amnesty International closed its two offices in Hong Kong in late 2021, driven by the NSL, which made it impossible for human rights organisations to work freely and without fear of serious reprisals from the government; whereas over 60 civil society organisations closed due to repression between 1 January 2021 and 4 January 2022, including 12 trade unions, eight media organisations, eight neighbourhood groups, seven professional groups, five student organisations and four religious groups;

H.

whereas dozens of pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong have been jailed for fomenting secession and subversion of the state under the NSL, such as Ma Chun-man, Tony Chung Hon-lam and Chow Hang-tung;

I.

whereas the European Union continues to have deep concerns regarding the PRC’s NSL for Hong Kong; whereas this is a sensitive issue, with far-reaching consequences for Hong Kong and its people, for EU and foreign citizens, for EU and international civil society organisations, and for business confidence in Hong Kong; whereas the entry into force of the NSL has increased the risks for EU citizens in Hong Kong;

J.

whereas the European Union has a strong stake in the continued stability and prosperity of Hong Kong under the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ principle and attaches great importance to the preservation of Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, in line with the Basic Law and international commitments; whereas in the current environment, those principles are on the verge of being irreversibly undermined;

K.

whereas ‘patriots-only’ Legislative Council elections took place on 19 December 2021 under new rules imposed by Beijing, which effectively barred pro-democracy parties from running, criminalised calls for voters to boycott or cast blank ballots, saw the Hong Kong SAR threaten international media outlets covering the election, extended voting to Hongkongers resident in mainland China, and saw only 30 % of registered voters cast their ballots; whereas the recent changes in the electoral system run counter to the commitments to greater democratic representation enshrined in the Basic Law; whereas Hong Kong is left without any pro-democratic opposition since its representatives are either barred from taking part in elections or have been jailed;

L.

whereas in July 2021, 21 pro-democracy candidates were disqualified from running in Macao’s legislative elections; whereas on 12 September 2021, the elections for the seventh Legislative Assembly of Macao were held without a real political opposition, which could lead to long-term social instability, and resulted in a record-low voter turnout of 42,38 %; whereas journalists at Macao’s public broadcaster have been ordered to promote ‘patriotism, respect and love’ for China and at least six journalists have resigned since the introduction of new editorial rules, showing that concerns over the NSL also affect other regions; whereas the Macao Basic Law also protects the freedom of the press and will be in place until 2049;

M.

whereas the pressure on Hong Kong’s civil society has intensified, as reflected by the disbanding of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, the China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group, the Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union and the Civil Human Rights Front, as well as the closure of the Amnesty International office;

N.

whereas the Hong Kong Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, has indicated that the SAR will introduce Article 23 of the NSL, which will criminalise foreign political organisations and deter them from conducting activities in Hong Kong;

O.

whereas the independence of the judiciary must be guaranteed, given its crucial role in safeguarding human rights and fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong;

P.

whereas in its resolution of 8 July 2021, Parliament called ‘on the Commission, the Council and the Member States to decline invitations for government representatives and diplomats to attend the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics unless the Chinese Government demonstrates a verifiable improvement in the human rights situation in Hong Kong’;

Q.

whereas China has been engaging in aggressive rhetoric and has introduced an unexplained and undeclared de facto ban preventing Lithuanian-made products from entering the Chinese market; whereas such unlegislated actions and practices violate not only all international and World Trade Organization rules of trade, but also directly impact the underlying principles of the EU single market;

1.

Condemns in the strongest terms the fact that freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of the press are as severely restricted in Hong Kong as they are in China, and reiterates its solidarity with the people of Hong Kong in their fight for freedom and democracy; deplores the political persecution to which many journalists who are now in exile or in prison have been subjected; calls on China to ensure that all journalists can conduct their work freely and without impediments or fear of reprisals; stresses that the freedom of the press and media should be ensured;

2.

Calls on the Hong Kong Government to release all political prisoners in Hong Kong; calls for the immediate and unconditional release and the dropping of all charges against all peaceful Hong Kong protesters arrested in the last few years, who simply exercised their right to freedom of expression or other human rights, such as Joshua Wong, Koo Sze-yiu, Martin Lee, Albert Ho, Margaret Ng and Kok Tsz-lun, a dual Chinese and Portuguese national and, therefore, an EU citizen, who was sentenced in Shenzhen in 2020 to seven months’ imprisonment for allegedly trying to flee Hong Kong by boat and is currently awaiting trial in custody in Hong Kong; condemns the ongoing cases, including those of human rights defenders Chow Hang-tung, Lee Cheuk-yan and Albert Ho; calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Swedish bookseller Gui Minhai, who is imprisoned in the PRC;

3.

Stresses that the NSL prevents a relationship of trust between China and the EU, which is undermining future cooperation and leading to a further erosion of Beijing’s credibility on the international stage, while also significantly damaging Hong Kong and Macao’s international status and reputations; urges the Chinese authorities to repeal the NSL, which is a breach of the PRC’s commitments and obligations under international law, namely the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Sino-Portuguese Joint Declaration respectively, and urges the Hong Kong and Macao authorities to fully respect the rule of law, human rights, democratic principles and the high degree of autonomy under the ‘One country, two Systems’ principle, as enshrined in the Hong Kong and Macao Basic Laws and in line with their domestic and international obligations; notes with concern the increasing attempts by the Chinese Government to legitimise its authoritarian system internally and externally by co-opting, redefining and distorting a number of political ideas, including the principles of democracy, through such notions as ‘democracy with Hong Kong characteristics’ or ‘whole-process people’s democracy’ and regards such attempts as a political farce;

4.

Deeply regrets the recent modifications to the electoral law of Hong Kong and the arrests and harassment of representatives of the pro-democratic opposition, which de jure and de facto prevent free and fair elections at all levels and have led to the dismantlement of all forms of political opposition; stresses that this runs counter to the commitments to greater democratic representation enshrined in the Hong Kong Basic Law;

5.

Deplores the decision by the Hong Kong authorities to ban, for the past two years, the annual 4 June Tiananmen Square vigil and the annual 1 July march, as well as Macao’s Court of Final Appeal decision to ban the city’s annual Tiananmen Square vigil; deeply regrets the removal of a monument to the victims of Tiananmen Square, the Pillar of Shame, by the University of Hong Kong from its premises and sees this as part of a continuous attack on academic freedom in Hong Kong and an attempt to erase history and collective memory;

6.

Calls on the Hong Kong Chief Executive to withdraw plans to introduce Article 23 of the NSL and to recommit to upholding the Basic Law, which guarantees freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and freedom of religion and belief;

7.

Underlines that the independence of the judiciary must be safeguarded and the politicisation of the courts avoided as a key priority; reiterates its call for the EEAS to prepare a detailed public report on the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary in addition to the Hong Kong annual report; calls on the EEAS to include discussions on the deteriorating rule of law situation in Hong Kong and the security of EU citizens in the annual structured dialogue meetings between the Hong Kong SAR Government and the EU;

8.

Expresses concern over the appointment of the chief of staff of the armed police force in Xinjiang, Peng Jingtang, as the People’s Liberation Army’s Hong Kong garrison commander and about comments that he will focus on alleged terrorist activities in Hong Kong;

9.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to address the enforcement of the NSL as a top priority on the agenda of all EU-China meetings, including in diplomatic consultations in preparation for those meetings; recalls the importance of the EU continuing to raise the issue of human rights violations in China, in particular the case of minorities in Xinjiang and Tibet, at every political and human rights dialogue with Chinese authorities and in line with the EU’s commitment to project a strong, clear and unified voice in its approach to China; recalls that China has signed up to a wide range of international human rights treaties and conventions, and therefore highlights the importance of pursuing dialogue with China to ensure that it lives up to its commitment to abide by the international human rights framework;

10.

Is extremely concerned at attempts by Chinese authorities to target Hong Kong diaspora communities, including human rights defenders, in EU Member States; reiterates its call on the EU Member States to suspend active extradition treaties with the PRC and Hong Kong;

11.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to review the Agreement between the European Community and Hong Kong, China on cooperation and mutual administrative assistance in customs matters (10) and the EU’s support for Hong Kong’s seat at the World Trade Organization, in the light of the destruction of the autonomy the territory had under the previously established ‘One Country, Two Systems Model’;

12.

Reiterates its serious concerns about the various human rights abuses in China and recalls that full respect for universal values is essential;

13.

Calls on the Council to introduce targeted sanctions under the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime (the EU’s Magnitsky-style sanctions) against the Hong Kong and PRC officials responsible for the ongoing human rights crackdown, including Carrie Lam, Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah, Xia Baolong, Zhang Xiaoming, Luo Huining, Zheng Yanxiong, Chris Tang Ping-keung and John Lee Ka-chiu; calls on Council and the Commission to agree to draw up a list of companies which should be subject to sanctions and investment bans for their complicity in the ongoing human rights crackdown in Hong Kong;

14.

Reiterates its previous position that any ratification of the EU-China comprehensive agreement on investment must take into account the ongoing human rights situation in Hong Kong and China’s commitment to the Sino-British Joint Declaration, and involve a clear and binding commitment to workers’ rights so as to ratify and implement International Labour Organization Conventions No. 29 on forced labour, No. 105 on the abolition of forced labour, No. 87 on freedom of association and protection of the right to organise and No. 98 on the right to organise and collective bargaining;

15.

Expresses concern that the closure of Stand News and Citizen News will lead to increased pressure from the Chinese authorities on the remaining local news publications;

16.

Fully supports proposals to hold a United Nations Human Rights Council special session or urgent debate on the deteriorating human rights situation in China, including with regard to the implementation of the NSL in Hong Kong and Macao and the adoption of a resolution to create a monitoring and reporting mechanism in line with a global call by hundreds of civil society organisations from all regions and a call for action by an unprecedented number of UN special procedures;

17.

Calls on the VP/HR to cooperate closely with like-minded countries and partners to halt the erosion of Hong Kong’s freedoms; welcomes the newly established bilateral EU-US dialogue on China and insists that stronger coordination on human rights, including with a focus on the situation in Hong Kong, should be a key objective;

18.

Reiterates its call for EU Member States to implement the EU Council conclusions of 28 July 2020 and introduce lifeboat schemes for Hong Kong pro-democracy activists and journalists who remain at risk of imprisonment under the ongoing crackdown on human rights; reiterates the need to set a clear timeline for the implementation of the package of measures of July 2020 and calls on the EEAS to continue keeping its implementation on the agenda and to prepare concrete responses to the possible extraterritorial effects of the NSL;

19.

Condemns China’s coercion and intimidation of Lithuania; welcomes the recent statements of solidarity with Lithuania aimed at resisting China’s coercive actions; urges the EU to defend the basic principles of the single market against Chinese intimidation;

20.

Calls on the Commission, the Council and the Member States to decline invitations for government representatives and diplomats to attend the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics since the Chinese Government has not demonstrated a verifiable improvement in the human rights situations in Hong Kong, Macao, the Xinjiang Uyghur Region, Tibet and elsewhere in China;

21.

Calls on the EEAS to investigate the status of the prominent Hong Kong pro-democracy activists who are not currently in jail, but are unable to leave the territory as a result of the authorities continuing to confiscate their travel documents and subjecting them to travel bans; calls on the EEAS and the Member States to fully apply the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders, including by requesting prison visits, observing trials, releasing public statements and raising cases with the authorities at all levels; calls on the EEAS to ensure adequate resources for the European Union Office to Hong Kong and Macao to enable it to continue conducting and adequately step up trial observation and human rights monitoring;

22.

Highlights, in particular, the importance of stepping up support to academia by expanding scholarships and other kinds of support instruments for Hong Kong academics and students so they can be enrolled in exchange programmes and cooperate with EU universities; calls on the EEAS and the Commission to develop and coordinate measures to protect the academic freedom of Hong Kong students and scientists at EU universities against pressure from Chinese authorities;

23.

Calls on the Commission and the EEAS to step up the application of and work on appropriate export control mechanisms to deny China and Hong Kong access to technologies used to violate human rights; encourages the Commission to finalise the preparation of effective EU corporate due diligence legislation imposing due diligence obligations on EU companies and companies operating in the EU single market;

24.

Calls for the EU and the Member States to help to save Hong Kong’s democratic memory by assisting with the archiving, publicising and documenting of human rights violations, and to counteract actions of the PRC by making books banned in Hong Kong widely available online; expresses its support for efforts by international television channels, such as Deutsche Welle and France 24, to regularly report on developments in Hong Kong;

25.

Calls on the Commission, the Council and the Member States to cooperate with international partners to help secure democracy in Taiwan, particularly in the light of recent developments in relations between Lithuania and Taiwan orchestrated by the Chinese Government and the erosion of Hong Kong’s freedoms under China’s policy of abandoning the ‘One country, Two systems’ approach;

26.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Government and Parliament of the People’s Republic of China, and the Chief Executive and the Assembly of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

(1)  Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0356.

(2)  OJ C 456, 10.11.2021, p. 242.

(3)  OJ C 362, 8.9.2021, p. 71.

(4)  OJ C 165, 4.5.2021, p. 2.

(5)  OJ C 224, 27.6.2018, p. 78.

(6)  Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0382.

(7)  OJ C 15, 12.1.2022, p. 170.

(8)  OJ C 433, 23.12.2019, p. 103.

(9)  OJ C 399, 24.11.2017, p. 92.

(10)  OJ L 151, 18.6.1999, p. 21.


2.9.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/8


P9_TA(2022)0012

Situation in Kazakhstan

European Parliament resolution of 20 January 2022 on the situation in Kazakhstan (2022/2505(RSP))

(2022/C 336/02)

The European Parliament,

having regard to its resolution of 11 February 2021 on the human rights situation in Kazakhstan (1) and its previous resolutions on Kazakhstan of 14 March 2019 (2), 18 April 2013 (3), 15 March 2012 (4) and 17 September 2009 (5),

having regard to the Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (EPCA) between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Kazakhstan, of the other part, which was signed in Astana on 21 December 2015 and which entered into full force on 1 March 2020 following its ratification by all Member States,

having regard to the 18th meeting of the EU-Kazakhstan Cooperation Council of 10 May 2021, to the 13th EU-Kazakhstan Human Rights Dialogue meeting held on 2 and 3 December 2021, and to the 18th meeting of the EU-Kazakhstan Parliamentary Cooperation Committee held on 11 October 2021,

having regard to Articles 2, 3(5), 21, 24, 29 and 31 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 10 and 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which commit the EU and its Member States in their relations with the wider world to upholding and promoting universal human rights and the protection of individuals, and adopting restrictive measures in cases of grave human rights breaches,

having regard to the Council conclusions of 17 June 2019 on the new EU strategy on Central Asia,

having regard to the declaration by the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) of 8 January 2022 and the statement by the European External Action Service (EEAS) spokesperson of 5 January 2022 on the latest developments in Kazakhstan,

having regard to the statement of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights of 6 January 2022,

having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the UN Convention against Torture,

having regard to the UN Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review of Kazakhstan of 12 March 2020,

having regard to Rule 144(5) and 132(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas on 2 January 2022 thousands of people started protesting peacefully in the city of Zhanaozen, opposing the government’s decision to lift the price cap on liquefied petroleum gas, which had led to a steep surge in prices; whereas protests rapidly spread to over 60 cities and localities, demanding genuine political change, fair elections and effective measures to tackle widespread corruption;

B.

whereas the human rights situation in Kazakhstan has deteriorated in a dangerous trend during the recent protests, with protesters citing the lack of democratic representation in government decision-making processes, worsening corruption and abuses of human rights and political freedoms as underlying causes of their grievances;

C.

whereas it is widely known that a similar protest took place in 2011 in the city of Zhanaozen, when a group of highly organised people resorted to violence, which was later used by the authorities to justify a violent crackdown using lethal weapons on peaceful protesters; whereas the Kazakh authorities failed to investigate the events of the 2011 Zhanaozen massacre despite calls by the European Parliament; whereas the judicial system and law enforcement authorities have not investigated these events, which calls into question the likelihood of those responsible for the current bloodshed being brought to account before a court and being punished;

D.

whereas 4 and 5 January 2022 marked a turning point in events, with an escalation of violence particularly in Almaty, the country’s largest city, and the reported appearance of new actors in the protests, such as criminal gangs, marginalised groups and armed groups, who took advantage of the situation to engage in violent action such as raids, arson and looting, including of police stations and military facilities; whereas the Kazakh authorities reacted to the protests, including those that were legitimate and peaceful, with disproportionate violence; whereas the response of the security forces to peaceful protests has been very harsh, with the use of excessive, unnecessary and indiscriminate force, including lethal force, such as the extensive use of tear gas, batons, flash grenades and water cannons; whereas at least 206 cases of political persecution took place on 3 and 4 January 2022 with the aim of preventing people from participating in the peaceful demonstrations, despite the authorities’ claims that they respect the right to peaceful assembly; whereas on 5 January 2022 groups of violent protesters seized the airport and stormed official buildings such as Almaty City Hall;

E.

whereas since the beginning of the protests, nearly 10 000 people have been detained throughout the country, and at least 225 people have been killed, including children, people who have not participated in protests and 19 law enforcement officers; whereas the real figures are probably higher and difficult to verify due to unreliable official information as well as disruptions of internet and mobile phone services; whereas there are continuing reports that the arrests, intimidation and torture of civil activists and ordinary people that began during the January 2022 rallies are still continuing; whereas activists Nuraliya Aitkulova, Aitbay Aliyev and at least 12 others were reportedly shot dead by law enforcement officials during protests; whereas peaceful civilians Nurbolat Seitkulov, Altynai Yetayeva and their 15-year-old daughter were shot dead by the military in Taldykorgan on 8 January 2022;

F.

whereas on 4 January 2022 the Kazakh authorities imposed restrictions on mobile internet and social networks; whereas on 5 January 2022 President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev declared a nationwide state of emergency that includes a curfew, temporary restrictions on movement and a ban on mass gatherings; whereas a five-day internet blackout intended to disrupt the protesters’ communications has been reported;

G.

whereas on 6 January 2022 forces from the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) were deployed in Kazakhstan on formal request to assist the Kazakh Government against protesters, marking the first time that the Russian-led military alliance has been called on to intervene in a member country;

H.

whereas on 11 January 2022 President Tokayev announced the full withdrawal of CSTO forces from the country by 23 January 2022; whereas the Russian Government, citing the spread of a viral disease among livestock, imposed a ban on imports of meat and dairy products from Kazakhstan a day after President Tokayev’s January 11 announcement;

I.

whereas as of 4 January 2022 the Kazakh authorities have initiated a widespread disinformation campaign, and an internet and media blockade to hide state involvement in violence against its own people and to discredit the peaceful demonstrations and genuine will of the Kazakh people to seek justice, dignity and respect for their rights;

J.

whereas on 7 January 2022 President Tokayev issued a ‘shoot to kill’ order against the protesters, whom he described as international terrorists; whereas such an order violates Kazakhstan’s international legal obligations to respect and protect the right to life; whereas the Kazakh authorities have used vague and overly broad interpretations of terrorism and extremism laws and measures to arbitrarily restrict free expression and peaceful dissent; whereas on 11 January 2022 UN experts denounced the overly broad use of the word ‘terrorism’ against protesters, civil society activists, human rights defenders, journalists and political parties;

K.

whereas Kazakh authorities politically persecute their opponents who have been forced to live abroad;

L.

whereas national and international journalists and media outlet offices have been criticised and attacked by the Kazakh Government and state forces, with foreign correspondents being denied entry to the country; whereas law enforcement officials who were not displaying their identification fired on a TV Rain journalist, Vasilyi Polonskyi, and a photographer, Vasilyi Krestiyaninov, while they were doing their job near the morgue in Almaty; whereas a number of journalists have been detained or harassed by law enforcement officials for their coverage of protests, including Saniya Toiken, Makhambet Abzhan, Lukpan Akhmediyarov, Kassym Amanzhol, Darkhan Omirbek and others;

M.

whereas the Kazakh authorities have long restricted fundamental rights, including the right to peaceful protest, freedom of association and free speech; whereas Kazakhstan is ranked 155th out of 180 countries in the Reporters Without Borders 2021 World Press Freedom Index; whereas 13 activists associated with Koshe Partiyasy and Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan (DCK), which are peaceful opposition movements, have been convicted, including the political prisoners Kairat Klyshev, Noyan Rakhimzhanov, Askhat Zheksebayev and Abai Begimbetov, who were sentenced to five years imprisonment immediately after the visit to Kazakhstan by the EU Special Representative for Human Rights and of the EU Special Representative for Central Asia; whereas their political trials were held online and no court decisions banning DCK and Koshe Partiyasy were presented in support of the charges;

N.

whereas President Tokayev accused activists, human rights defenders and the free media of inciting unrest; whereas over recent years the human rights situation in Kazakhstan has sharply deteriorated; whereas several prominent human rights NGOs, media and election observation organisations in Kazakhstan have been subjected to increasing pressure and judicial harassment by the country’s authorities; whereas this is part of a larger crackdown on civil society, trade unions and fundamental democratic rights, in particular on the freedoms of expression, association and assembly, on political pluralism, the right to participation in public affairs and the rule of law;

O.

whereas human rights defender Raigul Sadyrbayeva, who is in poor health, has been placed in pre-trial detention during the investigation of a politically-motivated criminal case for monitoring protests in Semey and is facing a long prison sentence; whereas human rights defender Aliya Isenova was shot in the arm by law enforcement officials while monitoring a protest in Semey and is now also reportedly facing a long prison sentence in a politically-motivated criminal case;

P.

whereas despite declarations by the Ministry of Interior of Kazakhstan to the Director of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) that there would be improvements in conditions in detention facilities and the respect for human rights, no tangible results have been achieved; whereas despite a memorandum signed by the penitentiary system of Kazakhstan and human rights defender Elena Semenova, torture and ill-treatment in detention facilities are still systematic, as is impunity for these crimes, because authorities continue to fail to credibly investigate torture allegations;

Q.

whereas the authorities regularly attempt to hack the social media accounts of civil activists, human rights defenders and opposition; whereas Kazakhstan tries to censor opposition and human rights content on social media;

R.

whereas the European Union and Kazakhstan have been partners since the country’s independence in 1991; whereas the European Union and Kazakhstan signed an Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (EPCA), the first of its kind with a Central Asian partner, which took relations between the EU and Kazakhstan to a new level and represented an important milestone in more than 25 years of EU-Kazakhstan relations; whereas the EPCA, ratified by all EU Member States and the European Parliament, entered into force on 1 March 2020;

1.

Deeply regrets the loss of life and strongly condemns the widespread acts of violence that erupted following peaceful protests in Kazakhstan; expresses its condolences to the victims and their families;

2.

Stands together with the people of Kazakhstan, who should fully enjoy the right to organiser a peaceful rally in protest against the lack of reforms in Kazakhstan and in defence of a prosperous future for the country; strongly condemns the dramatic and continually deteriorating situation of human rights in Kazakhstan, including of freedom of expression and labour and social rights; urges the Kazakh authorities to abide by their international obligations and respect human rights and fundamental freedoms;

3.

Calls on the Government of Kazakhstan to drop politically motivated charges and to put an end to all forms of arbitrary detention, reprisals and harassment against human rights defenders, activists, religious organisations, civil society organisations, trade unions, journalists and political opposition movements, and to allow people to freely express their political, religious and other views;

4.

Urges the Government of Kazakhstan to immediately release arbitrarily detained demonstrators and activists; urges the authorities of Kazakhstan to immediately release and fully rehabilitate all political prisoners, including Bekizhan Mendygaziyev, Erulan Amirov, Igor Chuprina, Ruslan Ginatullin, Yerzhan Yelshibayev, Saltanat Kusmankyzy, Baurzhan Jussupov, Nataliya Dauletiyarova, Rinat Batkayev, Yerbol Yeskhozin, Askar Kayyrbek, Ulasbek Akhmetov, Askhat Zheksebayev, Kairat Klyshev, Noyan Rakhimzhanov, Abai Begimbetov and Raigul Sadyrbayeva; asks the authorities to lift the measures mandating pre-trial detention, house arrest and restrictions on liberty imposed on civil society activists;

5.

Condemns the violations of fundamental freedoms and human rights committed by the Kazakh authorities against demonstrators, media workers and activists, including the indiscriminate use of lethal force by security forces; condemns President Tokayev’s inflammatory rhetoric, including his general portrayal of the protesters as ‘terrorists’, unsubstantiated and inflated claims of their numbers (allegedly around 20 000) and the threat to ‘kill them’; urges him to publicly cancel any order to shoot to kill without warning;

6.

Calls on the authorities to disclose information related to arrests and casualties resulting from the protests, and to ensure that all those prosecuted have access to a lawyer and are provided with fair trials in accordance with international law;

7.

Calls on the authorities of Kazakhstan to revise the law on public assemblies in order to guarantee the right to peaceful protest in line with international standards in order to allow people in Kazakhstan to participate in peaceful protests without fear of arrest or police harassment and interference and to ensure that independent media, civil society groups, political opposition groups, activists, trade unionists and human rights defenders can carry out their activities without undue government interference or fear of harassment or politically motivated prosecution; calls in this regard for a thorough reform of the justice system and, as recommended by the UN and the OSCE, the repeal of articles from the criminal code that are used for politically motivated prosecutions; calls on the authorities of Kazakhstan to overturn court decisions on peaceful Koshe Partiyasy and DCK opposition movements;

8.

Calls on the Kazakh authorities to stop the political persecution of human rights groups such as Bostandyq Kz, Qaharman, Femina Virtute, Veritas, 405, Elimay and Article 14;

9.

Calls for the EU and international community to immediately initiate a proper international investigation into the crimes committed against the people of Kazakhstan during the two weeks of rallies in Kazakhstan, and among other matters to investigate disappearances, as well as the reports of torture, arbitrary detention and snipers killing or wounding peaceful protesters, among them minors, in Almaty and other towns and cities of Kazakhstan;

10.

Calls on the EEAS and the Member States to use multilateral forums to monitor the human rights situation in Kazakhstan, including the UN Human Rights Council or the OSCE;

11.

Calls on the Member States to take the initiative to invoke the OSCE Moscow Mechanism) in order to allow an enquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the deaths of protesters and law enforcement officers in Almaty in January 2022 and other allegations of human rights violations since the beginning of the peaceful protest movement throughout Kazakhstan;

12.

Calls on the Kazakh authorities to invite UN special procedures and OSCE experts to undertake field visits and to fully cooperate with them, and to consider setting up a permanent working group under the OSCE’s auspices to assess whether the unrest was a result of foreign interference or internal power struggles and address their root cause;

13.

Expresses concern about the unacceptable media freedom situation in the country; calls on the Government of Kazakhstan to provide independent journalists with a free and safe environment; strongly condemns the use of internet shutdowns to crush dissent and violate freedom of expression and assembly, contrary to international human rights standards; calls on the Kazakh authorities to restore unrestricted access to the internet, unblock all other forms of communication and stop meting out reprisals against those who share news independently; calls on President Tokayev to publicly recognise and fully respect the importance and role of free media in Kazakhstan;

14.

Condemns the practice of torture and ill-treatment in detention facilities and urges the Kazakh authorities to guarantee citizens’ right to freedom from torture and ill-treatment, to ensure that detention conditions are in full compliance with international standards, to thoroughly investigate incidents of torture and to end impunity; calls on the Kazakh authorities to provide representatives from the National Preventive Mechanism and the Ombudsperson immediate and unimpeded access to all those detained;

15.

Urges the Kazakh authorities to refrain from bringing terrorism ‘charges’ on the basis of overly broad interpretations of the term and to distinguish between peaceful protesters and those who used violence and committed crimes under international norms; reiterates its call to revise the definition of extremism to bring it into line with Kazakhstan’s international obligations; urges the Kazakh authorities to cease using Article 405 of the Kazakh Criminal Code to target perceived or actual members of banned ‘extremist’ groups, seek a review of the arbitrary court-imposed ban on peaceful political movements; commission an independent review of all convictions handed down on charges of organising or participating in a banned ‘extremist’ organisation and call on the courts to vacate all convictions imposed on people simply for alleged membership or support of a peaceful political opposition or advocacy group;

16.

Demands that human rights be a priority for EU engagement with Kazakhstan; underlines that deeper political and economic relations with the EU as provided for by the EPCA must be based on shared values and correspond to active and concrete commitments by Kazakhstan to democratic reforms, stemming from its international obligations and commitments; encourages the VP/HR, EEAS and the Member States to continually call on Kazakhstan to repeal or amend all laws incompatible with international standards, and to raise human rights issues in all relevant bilateral meetings;

17.

Calls on the EU Delegation and Member States’ representations to Kazakhstan to closely monitor the situation, visit and provide support to detained protesters and political prisoners, actively engage with local members of civil society by organising regular meetings without discrimination and take a role in facilitating a dialogue between the government and civil society; urges them, furthermore, to actively monitor and quickly react to ongoing human rights violations and take a public stance on such violations by providing assistance to victims of political prosecution and imprisoned activists as well as attending trials of government critics and human rights defenders and visiting places of detention; calls for the EU and its Member States to develop as a matter of urgency a comprehensive programme to support the civil society and democratic forces of Kazakhstan;

18.

Calls on the EU Delegation and EU Member States’ embassies in Kazakhstan to coordinate and act swiftly to ensure the issuing of visas for at risk human rights defenders in need of temporary relocation outside Kazakhstan; calls on the EU Delegation and EU Member States’ embassies in Kazakhstan to engage with the Kazakh authorities to secure the immediate release of hundreds of political prisoners and detainees in Kazakhstan, the lifting of restrictions on liberty imposed on civil society and opposition activists, and the eradication of the torture and ill-treatment in prisons;

19.

Welcomes the VP/HR’s offer of ‘assistance for a peaceful resolution of the crisis’ in his declaration of 8 January 2022 but regrets the lack of a diplomatic initiative; encourages the EEAS to invest in building capacities and to use existing potential for mediation, peaceful crisis resolution and other tools, such as shuttle diplomacy, including by the VP/HR or the EU Special Representative for Central Asia;

20.

Calls on the EEAS to promote consideration of the situation in Kazakhstan at the next session of UN Human Rights Council with the subsequent adoption of a resolution on the situation;

21.

Calls for the authorities of Kazakhstan to comply with international standards regarding the legal framework for holding elections and to address the recommendations of the ODIHR Limited Election Observation Mission on constitutionally guaranteed fundamental freedoms, civil society participation, political pluralism, the impartiality of election administration, eligibility to vote and stand for elections, voter registration, the media and the publication of election results;

22.

Calls on Kazakhstan to implement urgent reforms aiming to fight corruption and increased inequalities; calls for the EU institutions to speed up the adoption of anti-corruption legislation to target corrupt officials and their supporters in Kazakhstan on the grounds of human rights abuses and money-laundering;

23.

Recalls the recently approved EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime, which enables the EU to target perpetrators of serious human rights abuses worldwide and, in the case of Kazakhstan, would allow for the targeting of individuals, entities and bodies involved in or associated with widespread and systematic human rights violations; calls on the Council to impose targeted sanctions on high-level Kazakh officials responsible for the serious violations committed during the protests of January 2022;

24.

Notes President Tokayev’s announcement of socioeconomic and political reforms and expects the government and the authorities to follow up with their implementation in order to improve citizens’ living standards and tackle their discontent, and calls on the President to provide further clarification on the political reforms and the structure of the new ‘For the People of Kazakhstan Fund’ as soon as possible; encourages the Kazakh Government to seek cooperation with the EU, OSCE and Council of Europe in this reform process, and asks the EEAS to stand ready to provide any relevant support in this process;

25.

Calls on Kazakhstan’s neighbours to refrain from all interference which could have a negative impact on Kazakh internal affairs;

26.

Calls on European institutions and agencies, including the EEAS and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the World Bank to halt financing programmes in Kazakhstan until the government takes substantial and tangible efforts to improve its human rights record, including implementing all recommendations by the European Parliament, the UN and the OSCE, in a way that does not affect direct support to independent civil society, activists, human rights defenders and media;

27.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the EU Special Representative for Central Asia, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, and the President, Government and Parliament of Kazakhstan.

(1)  Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0056.

(2)  OJ C 23, 21.1.2021, p. 83.

(3)  OJ C 45, 5.2.2016, p. 85.

(4)  OJ C 251 E, 31.8.2013, p. 93.

(5)  OJ C 224 E, 19.8.2010, p. 30.


2.9.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/14


P9_TA(2022)0013

Political crisis in Sudan

European Parliament resolution of 20 January 2022 on the political crisis in Sudan (2022/2504(RSP))

(2022/C 336/03)

The European Parliament,

having regard to its previous resolutions on Sudan,

having regard to the UN Security Council discussion on Sudan of 12 January 2022,

having regard to the statement of 4 January 2022 by the EU, the UK, Norway and the US following the resignation of the Sudanese Prime Minister,

having regard to statement attributable to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Sudan of 8 January 2022 on the announcement of talks on political transition in Sudan,

having regard to the statement of 21 November 2021 by the Chairperson of the African Union Commission on the political agreement reached in Sudan,

having regard to the statement of 18 January 2022 by the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) on the latest situation in Sudan,

having regard to the statement of 18 November 2021 by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights condemning the killings of peaceful protesters in Sudan,

having regard to UN Security Council resolution 2524 (2020) establishing the UN Integrated Transition Assistance Mission in Sudan (UNITAMS),

having regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, to which Sudan is party,

having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948,

having regard to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights,

having regard to the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials,

having regard to the Sudan Constitutional Declaration of August 2019,

having regard to the Cotonou Agreement (1),

having regard to the Juba Agreement for Peace in Sudan of October 2020,

having regard to the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,

having regard to the joint Africa-EU strategy,

having regard to the resolution of 11 March 2021 of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) and the EU on democracy and respect for constitutions in EU and ACP countries,

having regard to Rule 144(5) and 132(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas prior to the coup of 25 October 2021, Sudanese military and civilian leaders had been sharing power since August 2019 after authoritarian leader Omar al-Bashir was ousted following demonstrations demanding civilian rule; whereas the power-sharing agreement between the military and civilian actors led to the establishment of the Sovereignty Council as the country’s collective head of state;

B.

whereas the Sovereignty Council was originally made up of five civilians chosen by the Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC), five military representatives chosen by the Transitional Military Council (TMC), and one civilian selected by agreement between the FFC and TMC; whereas in accordance with the 2019 Sudanese Constitutional Declaration, for the first 21 months of the 39-month transitional period, the chair of the Sovereignty Council was to be chosen by the five military members of the council, and for the following 18 months, the chair was to be chosen by the five civilian members selected by the FFC; whereas the transition from the current chair, General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, to civilian rule was supposed to happen on 9 December 2021; whereas in line with the constitutional document governing the transition period, general elections are set to take place in Sudan by July 2023;

C.

whereas the 2019 power sharing agreement was shattered on 25 October 2021 when military leader General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan staged a coup, declared a state of emergency, dissolved the power-sharing Sovereignty Council, sacked the civilian government and temporarily detained Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok and his ministerial team as well as other activists and political figures, sparking international condemnation and widespread protests in Sudan; whereas this coup put an end to the transfer to a civilian-led Sovereignty Council;

D.

whereas on 21 November 2021, Hamdok signed an agreement with General al-Burhan, releasing him from house arrest and allowing him to continue as prime minister; whereas Hamdok agreed to resume his position in order to continue democratic reforms and to lead a new technocratic cabinet until elections could be held; whereas many pro-democracy activists, civil society groups and civilian leaders rejected this agreement; whereas Prime Minister Hamdok resigned on 2 January 2022 following nationwide pro-democracy protests, citing resistance by the military generals to increased civilian rule;

E.

whereas General al-Burhan appointed figures linked to the al-Bashir regime to key positions including in government-owned media and the central bank, and dismissed the attorney general and the leaders of a committee probing illicit financial gains made during the three-decade reign of al-Bashir; whereas on 24 December 2021, al-Burhan granted the intelligence services, the Rapid Support Forces and the army the powers to search, detain, interrogate and confiscate property, powers which were previously only granted to the police and prosecutors; whereas members of these forces were also granted immunity from prosecution, which can only be lifted by the leaders of the Sovereignty Council itself;

F.

whereas following the military coup of 25 October 2021, citizens continue to organise peaceful mass demonstrations against the military, which has continued to respond with violence and extreme force, including the use of live ammunition, tear gas and stun grenades, leading to the death of at least 70 protesters with hundreds more injured and imprisoned;

G.

whereas security forces are reported to have used sexual violence, with the UN currently investigating reports by 13 women and girls who were reportedly victims of rape or gang rape, while other women were sexually harassed by security forces during demonstrations in Khartoum on 19 December 2021; whereas there have been widespread internet shutdowns and disruption of communications in addition to reports of journalists targeted and arbitrarily arrested and attacked;

H.

whereas Sudanese women and young people played a key role in the country’s move towards democracy; whereas women, in particular during the earlier days of the democracy movement, have repeatedly fallen victim to violence, including sexual violence, and the perpetrators of these inhuman crimes have still not been punished;

I.

whereas there have been alarming reports of security forces entering hospitals to arrest protestors, prevent injured people from receiving treatment, and threaten and intimidate medical personnel; whereas the World Health Organisation has reported 15 attacks on healthcare workers and health facilities since November 2021;

J.

whereas the response to the protests violates the right to freedom of assembly, association and expression, the right to personal liberty and the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment, among other fundamental rights, which are guaranteed in regional and international treaties to which Sudan is party;

K.

whereas the human rights situation in Sudan continues to deteriorate and Sudanese civil society activists have increasingly been targeted in recent months; whereas several activists have reportedly gone missing and their remains have later been found with clear signs of torture; whereas civilians, human rights defenders, activists, journalists and political leaders have been arbitrarily arrested and held in incommunicado detention;

L.

whereas on 8 January 2022, UNITAMS launched consultations to restore the democratic transition with the aim of inviting the military, rebel groups, political parties, protest movements, civil society and women’s groups to take part in the process; whereas although this has been broadly welcomed both in Sudan and internationally, some parts of society remain firmly opposed to any power-sharing arrangement with military figures;

M.

whereas Sudanese citizens continue to face spiralling inflation, with the UN World Food Programme (WFP) reporting a year-on-year increase of more than 300 % and extreme rises in the price of fuel and basic commodities, coupled with a lack of basic services, leaving many unable to meet their basic needs and go about their livelihoods, adding to the sense of frustration among protestors; whereas Prime Minister Hamdok played a key role in negotiating debt relief and convincing the US to take Sudan off its list of state sponsors of terrorism; whereas numerous military commanders are reported to control around 250 companies in vital areas of the Sudanese economy, such as gold, rubber and meat exports;

N.

whereas in 2021, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) granted Sudan a USD 2,5 billion loan, and together with the World Bank approved Sudan’s request for debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative, requiring the adoption of extensive economic reforms, including the elimination of certain subsidies; whereas this risks being undermined by the coup;

O.

whereas following the coup, the African Union suspended Sudan from all its activities; whereas several states and multilateral organisations, including the IMF, paused foreign aid and halted disbursements; whereas the EU announced that its support to Sudan will be compromised if constitutional order is not restored; whereas numerous non-EU countries are actively involved in Sudan including through weapon supplies, political support and financial flows linked to raw materials and gold; whereas these countries play a role in the region’s stability and represent different objectives and long-term strategies; whereas their conflicting interests are a challenge for the further development of Sudan and the region and are aggravating already high tensions in the Horn of Africa, which will not be conducive to facilitating a political solution to the situation in Ethiopia;

P.

whereas the security situation across Sudan continues to deteriorate, notably in east Darfur where hundreds of civilians have been killed and thousands displaced in addition to large scale displacements and killing in South Kordofan; whereas according to the UN, 6,2 million civilians will be in need of humanitarian assistance in 2022 and, according to the WFP, 2,7 million people are subject to acute food insecurity; whereas the humanitarian situation has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 crisis and by the influx of refugees from the conflict in Ethiopia;

Q.

whereas the Sudanese Cabinet had unanimously agreed on 4 August 2021 to become a state party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), pending approval by the Sovereign Council, and would in so doing be required to hand over all suspects charged by the ICC for crimes committed in Darfur from 2003 to 2004, including former president Omar al-Bashir; whereas there has regrettably been no progress on the establishment of the Darfur special criminal court, as provided for in the Juba Agreement;

R.

whereas on 3 June 2021, the UN Security Council extended the mandate of UNITAMS, tasked with assisting the Sudanese authorities during the transition to democracy, until June 2022;

S.

whereas since September 2019, the EU, mostly through the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa, has provided more than EUR 88 million in development assistance to support political and economic reforms to contribute to peace and stability in Sudan;

T.

whereas on 12 November 2021, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet designated Adama Dieng an expert on human rights in Sudan; whereas Dieng is charged with preparing a written report that the High Commissioner will present to the UN Human Rights Council at its 50th session in June 2022;

1.

Deplores the killing of scores of Sudanese protestors and the injuries caused to hundreds more, including the use of sexual violence, at the hands of security services and other armed groups since the 25 October 2021 military coup; underlines the right of the Sudanese people to assemble and exercise their fundamental rights for democracy to be re-established and for their basic needs to be met; calls on all Sudanese stakeholders to respect the rule of law as stipulated in the 2019 Constitutional Declaration;

2.

Condemns the military coup of 25 October 2021 and recalls the urgent need for the Sudanese military leadership to recommit to the country’s democratic transition and deliver on the Sudanese people’s demands for freedom, peace and justice; demands that the Sudanese military leadership identify clear timelines and processes for a return to the previously agreed transition, including by establishing the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, creating accountability mechanisms and laying the groundwork for elections;

3.

Condemns all acts of violence against peaceful protestors, activists, journalists and all others peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression, association or assembly; calls for the immediate release of those currently in detention without charge or trial, for those facing charges to be allowed full access to legal representation and for the state of emergency to be lifted immediately; calls on the Sudanese authorities to immediately halt all illegal detention and enforced disappearances; recalls that Sudan’s armed forces have no legal authority to detain civilians or carry out law enforcement functions as the powers of arrest and detention of civilians have been limited to the police and prosecutors since 21 January 2021; condemns the continued shutdown of internet services;

4.

Strongly condemns the reported attacks by security forces on medical facilities; calls on the Sudanese authorities to allow all injured people to receive treatment; recalls that targeted attacks on healthcare workers, patients and facilities are a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law;

5.

Calls for independent investigations into the deaths and associated violence and for the perpetrators to be held accountable; supports calls for an independent international fact-finding mission to investigate reports of violence against protestors since the military coup in October 2021; calls for the EU and its Member States to engage with regional and international bodies to facilitate this and to closely monitor events in the country, ensuring all human rights violations are investigated so that perpetrators can be prosecuted; underlines that similar investigations into crimes committed during both the rule of Omar al-Bashir and the 2019 transition period must continue;

6.

Strongly supports efforts by UNITAMS to facilitate discussions to resolve the political crisis; calls on all Sudanese political actors to engage in this dialogue to restore the transition to civilian rule in line with the 2019 Constitutional Declaration and to pursue Sudanese citizens’ desire for greater freedom, democracy, peace, justice and prosperity; is of the firm opinion that the appointment of the new civilian prime minister and cabinet should happen in the light of just such a Sudanese internal dialogue in order to ensure their credibility and acceptance among Sudanese civil society, which has made clear that it denies any form of authoritarian government and wants a true and permanent transition to democracy; calls on all regional actors to act in good faith, support a civilian government and refrain from supporting the Rapid Support Forces, whose members must immediately be removed from policing and law enforcement in the interest of public safety in Sudan;

7.

Emphasises that in line with the 2019 Constitutional Declaration, the process of reform must be inclusive and Sudanese-led, identifying clear timelines and processes for establishing the legislative and independent judiciary, creating accountability mechanisms, and conducting inclusive, fair and transparent elections as soon as possible; emphasises that dialogue must be fully inclusive and representative of previously marginalised groups, including women, young people and minorities; calls for the EU and its Member States to actively support this process;

8.

Condemns and expresses deep concern over the alarming rise in violence in Darfur and South Kordofan; calls on international monitors to refocus their attention on Darfur and South Kordofan in order to protect the local population from violence, harm and mass displacement;

9.

Demands that security services and other armed groups immediately stop using violence against civilians and aid workers across the entire country, in particular in Darfur; condemns the looting of 29 December 2021 by local militia of the UN WFP food warehouse in El Fasher in North Darfur, which contains food designated for hundreds of thousands of food-insecure people in that area, and strongly underlines that humanitarian aid should never be a target in any conflict;

10.

Reiterates the call for former President Omar al-Bashir to be held accountable for the human rights violations against Sudanese civilians committed under his authoritarian rule, including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity; supports his extradition as well as that of former Defence Minister Abdelrahim Mohamed Hussein and former Minister of State for Humanitarian Affairs Ahmed Haroun to the ICC for their complicity in the Darfur war;

11.

Reiterates its demand that Sudan should ratify the Rome Statute of the ICC, fully cooperate with the ICC and implement outstanding arrest warrants; calls on Sudan to dismiss officials and security force officers implicated in serious human right violations and war crimes; urges all political actors to prioritise the creation of the Darfur Special Criminal Court as established in the 2006 Juba Declaration on Unity and Integration between the Sudan People’s Liberation Army and the South Sudan Defence Forces;

12.

Calls on Sudan to denounce efforts by the Sudanese military to retain ownership and control of strategic industries and companies, thereby reversing the process of reform; calls on the Commission to establish thorough due diligence mechanisms in relation to dealings with such sectors and to make full use of the provisions in the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime against individuals where appropriate;

13.

Condemns the military’s attempt to undermine Sudan’s institutions by removing civil servants who were appointed during the transitional period and replacing them with others aligned with the previous al-Bashir regime; underlines that civil servants dismissed by the regime must be reinstated;

14.

Supports the statement of the VP/HR of 18 November 2021 that if constitutional order is not fully restored, there will be serious consequences for EU financial support; underlines the need, however, for continued EU assistance in the provision of basic services such as health and education; welcomes, therefore, the EUR 10 million contribution for life-saving food assistance made to the WFP in Sudan in December 2021 through the Commission’s Directorate-General for Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations, in addition to the EUR 13 million contribution received at the beginning of 2021;

15.

Is concerned that EU cooperation with Sudan on migration is used by the military regime as an excuse to reinforce its ability to control and oppress people, for example by strengthening surveillance capacities, including at borders, and by supplying equipment; calls for the EU to therefore ensure complete transparency with regard to projects involving Sudan in the field of security, including all planned activities and beneficiaries of EU and national funding; stresses the need to continuously examine the EU’s approach to migration, sustainable development, humanitarian aid and good governance, while strengthening civil society and encouraging democratic reforms with the aim of inclusive political development in Sudan;

16.

Reiterates its call for an EU-wide ban on the export, sale, update and maintenance of any form of security equipment that can be or is used for internal repression, including internet surveillance technology, to states with deplorable human rights records such as Sudan; urgently demands that other countries in the region follow suit;

17.

Calls on the international community to join the EU in supporting civil society and democratic actors, and reminds non-EU countries, especially regional actors with a strong presence and influence in Sudan, of their international responsibility and of the important contribution they could make to a free, peaceful and democratic Sudan which would be in the long-term interest of all the above stakeholders;

18.

Calls on the EU delegation to Sudan and the Member States’ representation in Sudan to fully apply the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders, including by requesting prison visits, observing trials, releasing public statements, raising cases with authorities at all levels and issuing emergency visas where appropriate;

19.

Calls for active discussion of the situation in Sudan during the next meeting of the EU Foreign Affairs Council on 24 January 2022;

20.

Recognises and welcomes the efforts of Annette Weber, the EU Special Representative for the Horn of Africa, Volker Perthes, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Sudan and Head of UNITAMS, in his good offices role, and Adama Dieng, the UN Human Rights Expert for Sudan, and reiterates its full support for their important work; expresses gratitude for the significant work done by the staffers of the EU Delegation to Sudan, as well as by UN offices and other international organisations;

21.

Expresses its gratitude to Sudan for its efforts to provide shelter for the approximately 70 000 refugees from Ethiopia who currently reside in Sudan;

22.

Calls on the African Union and other regional organisations such as the Intergovernmental Authority on Development and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa to actively engage with Sudan and support efforts to ensure a peaceful and long-lasting democratic transition;

23.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Sudanese authorities, the African Union, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, the government and parliament of Egypt, the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Co-Presidents of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly and the Pan-African Parliament.

(1)  OJ L 317, 15.12.2000, p. 3.


RECOMMENDATIONS

European Parliament

Thursday 20 January 2022

2.9.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/20


P9_TA(2022)0015

Protection of animals during transport

European Parliament recommendation of 20 January 2022 to the Council and the Commission following the investigation of alleged contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to the protection of animals during transport within and outside the Union (2021/2736(RSP))

(2022/C 336/04)

The European Parliament,

having regard to Articles 13 and 226 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

having regard to Decision 95/167/EC, Euratom, ECSC of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 19 April 1995 on the detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament’s right of inquiry (1),

having regard to its Decision (EU) 2020/1089 of 19 June 2020 on setting up a committee of inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to the protection of animals during transport within and outside the Union, and defining its responsibilities, numerical strength and term of office (2),

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations (3),

having regard to the Aquatic Animal Health Code 2015 of the World Organisation for Animal Health, chapter 7.2, Welfare Of Farmed Fish During Transport,

having regard to the guidelines of the EU Platform on Animal Welfare of 3 November 2020 on the commercial movement of cats and dogs by land,

having regard to the draft recommendation of the Committee of Inquiry on the Protection of Animals during Transport within and outside the Union,

having regard to the final report of the Committee of Inquiry on the Protection of Animals during Transport within and outside the Union (A9-0350/2021),

having regard to Rule 208(12) of its Rules of Procedure,

General findings

1.

Stresses that all the conditions necessary to guarantee animal welfare during transport must be ensured at all times for all animals transported, regardless of their species, age, category or physical condition, the means of transport used, the length of the journey, or the place of destination, including third countries; notes that farmers generally have a particular interest in ensuring that animals arrive at their destination in the best possible condition;

2.

Calls on the Commission to take into account the report and recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry on the Protection of Animals during Transport when undertaking its fitness check of animal welfare legislation, notably Regulation (EC) No 1/2005;

3.

Stresses that the Union and its Member States are convinced that animals are sentient beings with special needs that should be taken into account, in accordance with Article 13 TFEU;

4.

Notes that every year millions of live animals are transported within Member States and to third countries over long distances for breeding, rearing, further fattening and slaughter;

5.

Stresses that EU citizens are increasingly keen to see compliance with animal welfare standards, especially in live animal transport;

6.

Agrees with the European Court of Auditors that although the EU has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, they are not implemented adequately throughout all Member States (4); insists that these standards only become effective if they are fully enforced, implemented in a harmonised manner, and reflect the latest scientific knowledge; considers that the EU needs to step up its efforts to ensure that animal welfare during transport is fully respected in every Member State at all times and by every party concerned, from the place of origin to the final destination; stresses that malpractice is not present across the whole industry; recognises that the transport of live animals currently plays a vital role in the economic and social dimension of some rural areas, in particular those which are predominantly agricultural, more remote or depopulated;

7.

Stresses that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has acknowledged the paucity of scientific literature on animal welfare (5) and urges the Commission and the Member States to promote the generation of scientific studies that increase knowledge and facilitate better guarantees of animal welfare in Europe;

8.

Stresses that the EU must work to create the necessary conditions that would allow a fair and adequate period of transition to a more efficient, economical and ethical system that favours the transport of semen or embryos over breeding stock, and carcasses and meat rather than animals being transited to slaughter, wherever possible;

9.

Notes that the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 are not aligned with the Farm to Fork strategy and welcomes the Commission’s proposed fitness check of EU legislation as part of the strategy; stresses that the revised Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 should be aligned with the Farm to Fork strategy; underlines that moving towards the replacement, as far as possible, of the transport of live animals with the transport of carcasses and meat products and of genetic material would be in line with the strategy’s main objective of building more resilient and sustainable short food supply chains which are less dependent on long-haul animal transport; considers, moreover, that the transport of germinal products, which take up less space, can reduce the environmental impact in terms of CO2 emissions and fuel consumption; further believes that a focus on small farms and regional networks of slaughterhouses can contribute to reducing animal transport as part of attaining the goal of a resilient, sustainable food system which affords farmers decent living standards; notes that the Farm to Fork strategy recalls the importance of moving towards a more healthy, plant-based, balanced and sustainable food consumption;

10.

Calls on the Commission to urgently present, and no later than 2023, an action plan clearly identifying the driving forces behind animal transport and proposing concrete policy actions, including regulatory actions, and setting a precise timeline and milestones, with the aim of mitigating those forces, and reducing the need to transport live animals enabling the replacement of live transport by a meat, carcasses and genetic material trade as much as possible; recalls the need to minimise the socioeconomic impacts of such a change, by directing different funds, including from the common agricultural policy (CAP), for this objective, and by providing the correct incentives to encourage and enable farmers and transporters to perform this transition efficiently; insists that the transition is possible only if multidisciplinary action going beyond Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 is adopted to facilitate and support the transition, so that it takes place smoothly and in a socially conscious way;

11.

Underlines the advantages of transporting genetic material (semen and embryos) in spreading the genetic improvement of some species; recalls, however, that the transport of animals can contribute to a wider genetic pool on farms, for example in third countries, and notes that in some cases, species’ natural mating and/or maternal lines need to be transported from nucleus, ‘multiplication’ units and farms to other farms; recalls that this transport is still important for small-scale and family-run farm livelihoods in the EU; points out, furthermore, that CAP and other funds need to be used to develop and stimulate new technologies, and innovations on handling and transporting genetic material and to support breeders;

12.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop strategies on how to cut the number of stages of transport that livestock have to endure by reducing the division into breeding, fattening and slaughtering establishments, establishing ‘closed containment systems’, reducing the distances between these establishments, and re-introducing a more regional approach to livestock breeding;

13.

Reminds the Member States that according to established case-law (6), they are permitted to introduce stricter national rules for the protection of animals during transport as long as they are in line with the main objective of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005;

14.

Considers that operators in the sector and all parties involved in the transport of live animals, including farmers, need to have a clear set of rules and definitions to abide by, predictability, and adequate transition periods to implement changes; calls on the Commission to take this into account when revising and proposing a new regulation;

15.

Calls on the Commission to carefully revise the definitions of place of departure and place of destination in order to reflect the actual times of the whole transport process from the farm of origin to the farm of destination or place of slaughter, including the time spent at assembly centres, and in order to prevent the circumvention of specific rules on journey times and of bans on transport to certain countries by re-routing transport through other Member States or third countries;

16.

Considers that a clearer and more explicit responsibility for animal welfare in the EU institutions would be of great importance to improve the enforcement of existing legislation on animal welfare, the identification of relevant gaps, and the elaboration of proposals needed to provide effective responses when necessary;

17.

Calls on the Commission to dedicate funds from existing programmes, including Pillar II funds from the CAP, and to envisage new funding instruments in the upcoming financial instruments devoted to more dedicated scientific research and evidence, providing adequate training to all those involved in animal transport, including officials and drivers, to improving animal welfare during transport, as well as to build slaughter facilities, including mobile ones, in regions with high concentrations of animals, improving transport time and quality, and also livelihoods in rural areas and measures promoting a shift to a meat, carcasses and genetic material transport; reiterates the importance of regional value chains for animal welfare;

18.

Calls for the upcoming CAP reform to maintain and reinforce the link between increased CAP payments and improved animal welfare conditions which fully abide by or go beyond the standards of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005;

19.

Calls on the Commission to develop campaigns and initiatives to properly inform EU citizens and increase their awareness of animal welfare on farms and during transport, of the need to improve and properly enforce EU standards and support those working in the animal transport industry to help them raise standards, and of the economic and social implications of transporting live animals; considers that the primary aim is to instil greater confidence in consumers of the high value and quality of the European agricultural and food sector by providing better and transparent communication, be it directly from farmers or indirectly through the EU institutions;

20.

Stresses that public awareness and understanding of animal welfare in food production are significantly improved by providing information in schools and launching advertising campaigns;

21.

Cautions that changes to Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 have stronger impacts on regions such as the outermost regions, namely due to their remoteness, insularity and small size, among other factors; insists that pursuant to Article 349 TFEU, the special characteristics and constraints of the outermost regions must be taken into account when applying common policies thereto, including Regulation (EC) No 1/2005;

22.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to grant special protection to individuals working in the transport sector or those carrying out veterinary checks when they observe and report infringements of animal protection legislation during their work;

23.

Welcomes the efforts to develop a uniform certification mark for animal welfare within the Union, which should include the aspect of transport and be based on harmonised and technically sound criteria;

24.

Calls for an animal welfare certification mark to include information about production methods and a selection of scientifically substantiated animal welfare indicators relating, inter alia, to farming systems and transport;

25.

Calls on the Commission to extend the list of environmental crimes in order to include the violation of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 resulting in the acts of cruelty, serious injury and abandonment;

26.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to revise Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 in order to ensure that drivers do not need to decide between following the rules and safeguarding the welfare of animals, namely of the need to stop and rest which can sometimes come at the detriment of the welfare of the animals;

27.

Calls for responsibility for animal welfare to be made explicit in the title of the relevant EU Commissioner and the name of the relevant Commission Directorate-General in order to reflect the significance of this issue for European citizens and ensure that enough political attention is accorded to it;

28.

Recalls that animal welfare is linked to food security in the medium and long term through its contribution to resilience, resource efficiency and social equality;

29.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to explore the possibility of introducing a transparent and harmonised animal welfare labelling system for animal and animal-derived products, which should also take into account transport and slaughter conditions;

Enforcement of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005

30.

Urges all Member States, especially those where regulatory enforcement is particularly lacking, and the Commission, to take all the necessary steps to improve implementation and enforcement and the full application of the existing regulatory framework, including by establishing a rigorous and harmonised control procedure at EU level; notes that the existing legislation on animal transport is implemented differently from one Member State to another; considers that the main way of addressing some of the animal welfare issues during transport in a harmonised way across the EU, which should factor in the latest scientific research, knowledge and recommendations, is through a revision of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, aiming for implementable and enforceable provisions for all animals being transported;

31.

Notes that strict checks on animal transport from third countries can reduce unfair competition at the expense of EU producers and encourage third countries to improve their animal transport standards;

32.

Calls on all Member States to adopt stricter national measures to improve animal welfare during transport;

33.

Acknowledges the Commission’s commitment to revise animal welfare legislation, including Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, in order to align it with the latest scientific knowledge, recommendations and practical experience, and to broaden its scope, make it easier to enforce and ultimately ensure a higher level of animal welfare; stresses that animal welfare would be improved if the legislation on the transport of live animals is implemented properly;

34.

Underlines that many of the current problems with the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 are due to differing interpretations and calls on the Commission, when proposing a revision of the regulation, to set clear, measurable and quantifiable standards in order to achieve harmonised enforcement across the EU, as well as innovative indicators based on animal welfare; calls on the Commission, in this regard, to consider the most recent scientific knowledge, including the forthcoming EFSA assessment on the welfare of animals during transport in the EU;

35.

Urges the Commission to accompany its revision of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 with an ex ante impact assessment based on a rigorous scientific investigation into the impact of transport on animals of all species and ages and on an in-depth socioeconomic, environmental and health impact assessment taking into account the diversity of geographical situations and specificities, including islands, remote and outermost regions, and farming models across the Union; calls on the Commission to make the results of these assessments swiftly available to the public in order to give farmers the certainty and predictability they need to plan and give them time to learn how to adapt to new regulations, without compromising animal welfare;

36.

Calls for a transparent EU monitoring and reporting system to make both the Member States and the Commission fully accountable for the implementation and enforcement of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 and ensure that violations are tackled and mitigated effectively;

37.

Notes that slaughtering animals and processing meat close to the place of rearing not only contributes to animal welfare, by limiting journey times, but also reduces greenhouse gas emissions;

38.

Notes that the disappearance of local slaughterhouses, which is a factor in longer journey times, is an issue that the Union and the Member States must address; calls on the Commission and the Member States to set up funding mechanisms to ensure that local slaughterhouses are economically viable, close to farms and evenly distributed from a geographical perspective;

39.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to support the development of on-farm slaughter, using mobile slaughterhouses, in order to remove the need to transport live animals wherever possible;

40.

Is aware of the paucity of scientific literature on animal welfare during transport and strongly encourages the Commission and the Member States to facilitate more updated scientific knowledge on this topic;

41.

Calls on the Commission to consider the issue of animals that are no longer fit for transport when revising the rules and to seek expertise to find solutions for how to deal with it;

42.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop harmonised procedures for approving transport and to take steps to prevent the spread of infectious animal diseases during transport, both within the Union and from third countries;

43.

Calls on the Commission to exercise stronger enforcement powers when faced with recurrent and repeated violations of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 and to initiate infringement proceedings and apply effective sanctions against Member States that fail to apply the regulation correctly; considers that sanctions should have as their main purpose the rectification of existing problems and have a dissuasive effect against future infringements;

44.

Calls on the Member States to properly train and hire enough official veterinarians and police officers to ensure effective and frequent on-the-road checks, and to guarantee the presence of a veterinarian during loading before each journey;

45.

Calls on the Member States and transporters to promote and fully apply the Commission-endorsed EU animal transport guides by the entry into force of the revised Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, which aim to establish best practices to support the industry in improving the welfare of animals during transport; calls on the Commission to promote the translation of the guides into all EU official languages, encourage exchanges of experiences in the field, and promote existing best practices and guidelines to help the competent authorities and actors involved in the transport of live animals to better implement and abide by animal welfare standards;

46.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that the guidelines are updated according to the latest scientific evidence and are in line with Regulation (EC) No 1/2005; recalls, however, that guidelines designed to fill gaps in the legislation are not legally binding and calls on the Commission to include provisions to properly protect species that are poorly covered by the legislation, such as poultry, rabbits and fish;

47.

Considers that adequate training and continuous learning for any authorised person working in the animal transport sector is an essential requirement to safeguard the well-being of animals during transport; insists, therefore, on the development of a mandatory harmonised training system for all persons involved in animal transport operations, which should be a prerequisite for the authorisation of transport; demands, furthermore, that this training include all aspects of the transport process, such as the means of transport, the type and nature of the journey, the appropriate handling of animals and the decision-making process regarding fitness-for-transport assessments and requirements relating to the animal’s species, category, age, body condition, behaviour, physiology and stress-coping mechanisms;

48.

Urges the Member States to ensure that training to obtain the certificate of competence be specific to species, category and age and valid for a maximum of five years, and that a mandatory refresher course be set in order to obtain its renewal;

49.

Urges the Member States to provide specific training for rescue workers on how to rescue animals and to ensure that rescue workers who respond to accidents be allowed to access the sites, vehicles and vessels involved in order to carry out their work;

50.

Calls on the Commission, when adopting delegated acts under Regulation (EU) 2017/625 (7), to ensure that the enforcement provisions provided for in the regulation and its delegated acts are at least as stringent as those due for repeal;

Authorisation procedures and approval of means of transport

51.

Insists that the provisions on the timing and means of transport must always consider the species-specific and physiological status of the animal, the number of animals to be transported and also the breed variation within species, sex and the age of the animals; stresses that the transport methods used should always respect the physiological, behavioural and mental needs and well-being of the animal;

52.

Calls for the insertion of the requirements of the International Air Transport Association for the intra- and extra-EU transport of animals, including zoo animals, into Regulation (EC) No 1/2005;

53.

Insists that space allowances, stocking densities and headroom provisions need to be aligned with the most recent scientific data and the relevant EU regulation on the maximum weight and height of trucks, with rules to be set out in the regulation in a precise way that removes ambiguity, leaves no room for differing interpretations, and takes species-specific needs into account; calls for more studies to be conducted on these issues; calls on the Member States to ensure that the internal height of transport vehicles meets the minimum standards;

54.

Recalls EFSA’s recommendation to use allometric equations when defining space allowances for cattle, sheep and pigs and the area per kg for horses; believes that using these more objective calculations will improve animal welfare standards and promote a more consistent interpretation by transporters and controlling authorities;

55.

Considers that more scientific evidence is needed to achieve better solutions and bring about improvements in the design of the means of transport, including loading and unloading equipment, taking into account species- and category-specific as well as physiological, behaviour, and age requirements and breed variations within species; believes that such transport design should also be based on the geographical conditions of an area and the fact that small farms often have to transport individual animals or a number of animals of a different species at the same time; emphasises that the quality of the environment in animal transport vehicles is very important for animal welfare;

56.

Consider that a better design of the means of transport and shorter transport distances are needed in order to prevent the transmission of diseases, bearing in mind the serious threat of antimicrobial resistance;

57.

Calls on the Commission to define and propose a set of harmonised criteria and minimum standards developed in conjunction with an EU-wide expert panel, comprising veterinarians including qualified professionals from the relevant non-governmental organisations, technical engineers, maritime authorities, hauliers, manufacturers and members of the competent authorities, which could be used by the competent national authorities when approving all means of animal transport and containers;

58.

Calls for the creation of an EU-wide centralised system for vessel approval under a uniform procedure, in view of the multidisciplinary nature of vessel certifications involving engineers and veterinarians alike; considers it fundamental that the recommendations of the network document on the approval and inspection of livestock vessels (8) should be implemented in all Member States; considers it a matter of urgency to prevent vessels from operating under a different name and thus requesting new licences, especially when they have been involved in serious violations of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005;

59.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to strengthen monitoring of compliance with maritime safety standards by livestock vessels; calls on the Member States, in particular, to be more stringent in their vessel certification procedures;

60.

Notes that the Member States should not authorise the use of vehicles and vessels transporting animals that do not comply with the provisions of the Regulation (EC) No 1/2005; calls on the Member States to be more rigorous in both the certification and approval procedures for vehicles and vessels and in granting certificates of competence to drivers; calls on the Member States to be more rigorous in rejecting certification and approvals in case of non-compliance and to withdraw authorisations that have already been issued, where necessary; calls on the Commission to be more rigorous in sanctioning Member States that approve means of transport that are not in line with animals’ welfare needs;

61.

Calls on the Member States to ensure that there are no gaps between the floor or vehicle wall and the partitions in transport vehicles;

62.

Calls on Member States to create the conditions in order to ensure that engineers are able to support appropriately veterinarians or other authorised persons with certification during the approval of means of transport in relation to specific items, such as ventilation systems, air conditioning and heating, water and feeding supplies, water quality monitoring and maintenance equipment and vessels’ emergency systems, as well as the associated primary power sources;

63.

Considers that the equipping of means of transport with a CCTV system, for long-haul journeys, with a particular focus on the loading and unloading operations, should be mandatory for the sake of animal welfare protection and in order to safeguard operators who comply with the rules from unfair competition; stresses that data protection and privacy rights, including those not involved in the transport of animals who may unknowingly be recorded, must be ensured by the competent authorities throughout the entire process; considers that carriers must keep the videos recorded for a set period and make them available to the competent authorities upon request;

64.

Considers that the contingency plans presented by transporters should cover all types of incidents and emergency scenarios that may occur during transport, whether natural or as a result of human action, including remedying mechanical problems, managing delays, setting alternative routes if necessary, and ensuring a necessary supply of food and water, among other aims; considers that the contingency plans must be adapted to reflect the specificities of each journey; considers it essential that clear rules are set that prohibit the authorisation of transport that includes unrealistic, implausible or missing emergency plans and calls on the Member States to refuse any journey log that lacks a credible or complete contingency plan;

65.

Calls on the Commission to prohibit transport where it is impossible to unload, shelter, feed or water animals at border crossings and ports or other hazardous key places;

66.

Calls on the Member States and their competent authorities to properly inspect loading operations as required by Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005;

Controls and data collection and exchange

67.

Urges the Commission to rapidly develop a central database of authorised transporters and certificates of competence in the EU; calls for the publication of an annual report on breaches of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 and the sanctions applied, which should also be taken into account for the future regulation; considers that the certificates of competence should be in a uniform, multilingual format to be defined by EU legislation; calls on the Commission to draw up a European certification scheme for freighters and their crews, ensuring that the former are sufficiently equipped and the latter sufficiently trained for the transport of live animals; calls on the Commission to compile a list of operators that are culpable of serious and frequent breaches of the regulation, which should be updated regularly and shared with the national authorities;

68.

Calls on the Member States to improve and enforce a more effective, transparent and systematic use of the Trade Control and Expert System (TRACES) and to take advantage of its new features in order to improve the targeting of their inspections and/or audits based on risk assessment, to support the preparation of risk analyses for live animal transport controls by the Member States, and to ensure effective plausibility checks when approving journey logs and performing retrospective checks; calls on the Commission to ensure easy access to the TRACES platform, granting wider access for all authorised users and making it easily accessible to competent authorities, and to help harmonise procedures between the Member States; calls on Member States to ensure better training for operators using the system; considers that TRACES should be used for all transport involving maritime travel;

69.

Highlights the need to simplify the processes of journey log planning; calls for a rapid transition from paper journey logs to digital journey logs which, once approved by an official veterinarian, should be sent to the competent authorities and accessible by the competent authorities of all Member States; calls on the Member States to ensure that the competent authorities verify that the journey logs contain realistic information, thereby complying with Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, and to ensure that the transport planning includes proof of a reservation at a control post, including feed and water;

70.

Calls on the Commission to establish a minimum common framework on the number of checks on animal transport journeys, ensuring that the number of national and EU checks are proportionate to the number of animals departing from each Member State; calls on the Commission, furthermore, to propose control options which do not involve additional bureaucratic obstacles that could jeopardise the welfare of the animals intended for transport or the uniformity of controls throughout the Union; considers that Member States should put in place control systems that verify the existence, quality and implementation of risk analyses when delegating controls to other authorities;

71.

Stresses that the expansion of regional slaughterhouses should be promoted and on-farm slaughtering should be approved in order to avoid long-distance transport and thereby further improve the welfare of livestock;

72.

Stresses that the action plans presented by the Member States to address deficiencies detected in the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 must contain concrete initiatives with strict timelines for their completion; calls on the Commission to carry out thorough follow-up of the plans in order to guarantee that the actions are completed and the objectives are fully accomplished; underlines that the Member States have the possibility to impose strict rules to ensure the welfare of live animals during transport;

73.

Calls on the Commission to propose and establish a harmonised and effective EU-wide sanctions system, with a definition of common minimum criteria for sanctions for infringements to the regulation, in order to lay the foundations for an effective, proportionate and dissuasive system across the EU, and to take into account within the sanction system the nature, gravity, scale and duration of the infringement, and the occurrence of previous infringements;

74.

Calls on the Member States to ensure that their national police forces be trained to actively identify any infringements of EU animal transport legislation;

75.

Stresses the need for uniform training of police forces across the Member States to ensure proper controls at all stages of journeys;

76.

Calls on the Commission to propose measures to ensure comprehensive and uniform inspections of compliance with transport rules to prevent animal dumping in the Union;

77.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop a procedure to quickly withdraw the licences of companies that commit serious and repeated infringements of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, which also lead to unfair competition;

78.

Calls for animal-based welfare indicators such as physical, physiological and behavioural indexes (i.e. based on observations of the animals), as well as the possible use of wearable monitors and biochemical markers: to be incorporated into Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, and to be used by the competent authorities and the Commission for data collection purposes, veterinary inspectors, and transporters and operators under commercial conditions; considers that such tools would be necessary to assess animal well-being before, during and after transport; notes that some such indicators already exist, while others are being developed by European reference centres, but stresses the need for further research and data collection in the field;

79.

Considers that real-time access to satellite navigation systems and temperature recordings is fundamental for the competent authorities and transporters at any point in a journey; considers that means of transport should be equipped with more up-to-date control systems monitored by the competent authorities, including temperature and humidity index measurements inside and outside the vehicle, water supply information and the recording of loading and unloading operations; recalls that data protection and privacy rights must be ensured by the competent authorities throughout the entire process;

80.

Insists that the competent authorities must be granted real-time access to original electronic data by the organiser or transporter, from the dispatch of the consignment at the place of departure until the animals are unloaded at the place of destination, to ensure access to data that cannot be manipulated;

81.

Calls on the Member States to carry out unannounced controls through the competent authorities of the planning and implementation of animal transport;

82.

Stresses that intra-EU consignments should also be inspected at loading; demands that the competent authorities should check at loading to ensure that the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on floor space and headroom are observed, that the ventilation and water systems are operating properly, that the drinking devices are working properly and are appropriate for the species being carried, that no unfit animals are loaded, and that sufficient feed and bedding is provided;

83.

For animal welfare reasons, urges the Member States to carry out retrospective controls to check if the animals had been unloaded for the whole resting time required by EU legislation; calls on the Commission to give a clear order to the Member States to make competent authorities act in a harmonised way so as not to authorise any transport where retrospective controls are not regularly performed;

Journey times and resting periods

84.

Recommends the establishment of an EU-wide species-based procedure for recording feeding and watering frequency from the last feed before loading in the farm of origin through to the end of the journey, without causing additional delays or added stress either during stops or loading or unloading; insists that the Commission take measures to ensure that Member States properly sanction infringements where journey times are exceeded;

85.

Calls on the Member States to inspect intra-EU transport when animals are loaded onto vehicles in order to verify compliance with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005;

86.

Calls on the Member States to ensure that there is a sufficient number of accessible, clean and functioning drinking facilities in keeping with the needs of each species of animal, that the water tank has been filled, and there is sufficient quantity of fresh litter;

87.

Recommends that, in future legislation, journey time for domestic animals going to slaughter should, in principle, not exceed eight hours, while taking into consideration the specific geographical characteristics of some regions, such as islands, outermost regions, remote regions, and areas where infrastructure is underdeveloped; stresses that the maximum journey time must apply to all means of transport, except transport by sea;

88.

Insists that the provisions regarding the maximum length of the journey should be revisited, to integrate evidence from existing and ongoing scientific studies and taking animal-based evidence and species, age, and category-specific needs into account;

89.

Calls for existing EU funds to be set aside to provide financial support for small-scale, local and collective mobile slaughterhouses and processing units so that animals can be slaughtered on farms or as close as possible to their place of rearing; strongly encourages alternative strategies to long-distance transport, such as building local and economically viable slaughtering and processing facilities in more locations, incentivised and supported by EU funds where appropriate, as well as legislative initiatives in the Member States to facilitate on-farm slaughter; calls on the Member States to allow emergency slaughtering directly on livestock and fattening farms, where appropriate, in the event that an animal is found to be unfit to be transported;

90.

Recommends that the Member States create fast lanes for animal transport at borders within the EU in order to reduce journey times;

91.

Calls for a definition of ‘journey time’ as the entire time of movement excluding the time of loading into a means of transport, and unloading from the means of transport, once arrived at the final destination; calls on the competent authorities to check whether planned loading/unloading times are realistic, proportionate to the number of animals to be loaded or unloaded, and accurately declared in the journey log; deems it important, moreover, to adopt measures to prevent ‘assembly centre hopping’ aimed at circumventing journey limits to the final destination;

92.

Recommends that the Commission consider science-based evidence to improve the quality of all live animal transport, focusing on the associated negative aspects which are the cause of welfare issues, such as fitness for transport, feeding and watering, rest periods and the thermal environment, while differentiating between the means of transport where relevant;

93.

Calls on the Commission to include provisions in the revision of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the selection of the shortest, most suitable route to the final destination;

Temperature during transport

94.

Calls on the Member States to ensure optimal temperatures inside vehicles for the species transported at all times during the journey, whether the means of transport is stationary or moving and whatever the outside temperature; calls on the Member States, furthermore, to strictly apply the minimum and maximum temperature inside the means of transport as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1/2005; considers that the Member States should only grant approval of a journey, journey logs and travel plans when the temperatures are forecasted to be within the range of 5 oC and 30 oC, for the duration of the whole journey, regardless of the type of transport used, unless the means of transport used is equipped with climate control systems capable of maintaining the temperatures within the appropriate range;

95.

Acknowledges that animals’ body heat can increase temperatures within a means of transport, leading to potentially higher temperatures inside than outside;

96.

Calls on the Member States to perform additional and adequate controls during heat waves and calls for studies to be undertaken to fill knowledge gaps on the impact of temperatures on animal welfare;

97.

Calls on the Commission to make it clear that the rule on vehicle temperature applies at any point during a journey until the final destination; insists that the Commission should ensure, including through legal action, that Member States do not disregard this rule;

98.

Calls for the development of a uniform weather forecasting system based on data from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in order to simplify the plausibility check carried out by official veterinarians;

99.

Calls on the Member States to ensure that the transport vehicles comply with the minimum space requirements of Chapter VII of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 and that, accordingly, animals are allowed more space at high temperatures;

100.

Considers it essential to develop more specific rules in the future on the optimal temperature ranges in transport vehicles, taking account of different needs specific to species, age and category, as well as the physiological status of the animal, intra-species breed variations, age, sex and environmental adaptations, and the temperature regulation of the animals; considers that the approved temperature range should be based on effective temperature, namely the combination of temperature and humidity; recommends, moreover, the recording of the temperature, humidity and ammonia by controlling devices placed in the different compartments of the means of transport regardless of whether the transport takes place via sea, air or road; stresses that the temperature monitoring instruments must be inspected, calibrated and certified by the competent national authorities;

Fitness for transport and categories of vulnerable animals: unweaned, gestating and end-of-career animals

101.

Considers that more research is required to identify the appropriate feed, feeding and rumination intervals, thermoregulation, resting needs and physical capacity to tolerate transport without harm for all animal species and categories being transported; believes that animal welfare should be the primary concern and that knowledge gaps should be filled through increased scientific research;

102.

Considers that more research needs to be focused on improving knowledge about the special and specific transport needs of young and unweaned animals, in particular in relation to optimal journey time, according to the means of transport used, optimal space allowance, the right age, appropriate drinking devices, appropriate milk replacers, proper feeding management in collection centres, feeding intervals during transport and optimal conditions for raising the animals at the farm of origin, and the assessment of the fitness of animals for transport that needs to be properly ensured;

103.

Calls for the definition of unweaned animals to be clarified to specify those animals that are incapable of taking on sufficient solid feed and water independently and with a clear minimum age in weeks, according to the species and taking into account the most recent scientific knowledge on the immune systems and feeding needs of these animals;

104.

Calls on the Commission to introduce, supported by peer reviewed scientific studies, journey time limits for unweaned animals; considers that the transport of unweaned animals should be avoided and not allowed for calves below four weeks, except in the case of transport carried out by farmers for a distance of less than 50 km; considers that the transport limitation for these animals needs to be strongly considered in the future regulation, also taking into account the need for actions to ensure that all animals receive proper care at the farm of origin;

105.

Calls on the Member States to promote mobile slaughterhouses in remote areas, particularly in mountain and island areas; recalls that such mobile slaughterhouses would improve the welfare of injured animals that cannot be transported to slaughterhouses and would promote direct sales;

106.

Recommends that the Commission provide EFSA with a mandate to develop common mandatory EU guidelines for assessing whether animals are fit for transport in order to ensure a harmonised approach across the EU; believes, in addition, that the use of these guidelines must be checked and linked to sanction systems;

107.

Recognises the differences between the transport of animals by road and by sea; calls for further research to better understand the effects of each mode of transport on animal welfare;

108.

Considers that the particularly difficult geographical situation of the island and outermost regions means that local rearing and short supply chains should be encouraged in order to reduce the journey time of animals;

109.

Calls on the Member States to promote mobile slaughterhouses in island areas, in particular in the outermost regions; notes that the use of such mobile slaughterhouses considerably reduces the road and sea transport of live animals in those regions;

110.

Stresses the vulnerability of gestating females, which have very specific biological needs and are particularly vulnerable in transport, which can cause miscarriages or birthing during the journey, with risk of death of the mother or young animal; considers that transport of gestating animals should be avoided and believes that the transport of pregnant animals in the last third of gestation should be restricted to a maximum of four hours, given that they are at greater risk of suffering poor welfare during transport; calls for more research to be undertaken to develop more accurate methods for determining gestational age and assessing fitness for transport according to the stage of gestation; calls on the Member States’ authorities to be highly vigilant to ensure that unfit animals are not transported, in particular pregnant females above the maximum gestation period allowed by Regulation (EC) No 1/2005;

111.

Considers that the risks of lower levels of protection of vulnerable animals, with less economic value, particularly animals at the end of their productive life, is very real and this should therefore be factored into the revision of the provisions, along with avoiding long-distance transport of these animals, because of the difficulty to assess their fitness, as well as their ability to cope with transport; considers that the transport of end-of-career animals should only be permitted to the closest available species-appropriate slaughterhouse; calls on the Commission to promote initiatives and investments to enhance the network of mobile, local and regional slaughterhouses, in order to ensure that a maximum limit of four hours’ transport of end-of-career animals can be attained in the future;

112.

Insists that in the case of animals getting ill or being injured during transport, drivers must immediately warn a veterinarian, and the animals concerned must be considered ‘unfit’ for transport, separated from the other animals and receive first aid treatment;

Species not adequately covered by Regulation (EC) No 1/2005

113.

Recommends that the Commission devise legislative proposals on the basis of the latest scientific knowledge on the needs of fish and other aquatic animals and on transport methods in order to minimise their suffering during transport; stresses that the new provisions should provide a detailed checklist for pre-transport planning and preparation, specific provisions concerning water quality parameters, density, handling during loading and unloading, and post-transport welfare controls; calls on the Commission to ensure that the guidelines it publishes are updated on the basis of the latest scientific evidence and are in line with Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 and calls for specific requirements for the commercial movement of fish; stresses, furthermore, that specific training and certification should be provided regarding fish transportation;

114.

Calls on the Commission to include provisions within Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 to properly protect species not already adequately covered by the legislation; reminds that guidelines to fill legislative gaps, namely on specific species, are not legally binding and calls on the Commission to include provisions to properly protect species poorly covered in the legislation, such as poultry and rabbits; calls, furthermore, for species-specific provisions in the following cases, including, where relevant, maximum journey times according to reason for transport; considers that specific containers for poultry are required, allowing the birds to stand in their natural position and to have enough air circulating above their heads, with rules for a proper handling, particularly when being caught before transport; notes that the lack of provisions in the regulation concerning rabbits results sometimes in the inadequate use of poultry containers for the transport of rabbits; considers that the transport of poultry and rabbits should only be permitted to the closest available species-appropriate slaughterhouse; calls on the Commission to promote initiatives and investments to enhance the network of mobile, local and regional slaughterhouses, in order to ensure that a maximum limit of four hours’ transport of these animals can be attained in the future;

115.

Highlights the urgent need to assess the most recent scientific information on the welfare of companion animals during transport; considers that more research is required on the needs of companion animals in line with the provision in Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 regarding the publication of EFSA opinions on the needs of cats and dogs; calls on the Commission to introduce detailed provisions on the commercial movement of companion animals based on the current scientific knowledge, paying particular attention to the separation of animals and space allowances, stacking, bedding, a suitable temperature and humidity range to ensure animal welfare, as well as proper training for the personnel responsible for handling and transporting the animals;

116.

Highlights the urgent need to assess the most recent scientific information on the needs and welfare of horses during transport; expects the Commission to take these species into account by proposing species-specific requirements in the revised Regulation (EC) No 1/2005;

Specific provisions on transport by sea

117.

Calls for measures enabling a shift to a meat, carcasses and genetic material trade, where appropriate, that could replace the need for sea transport; urges the Commission to improve and clarify the provisions on maritime transport, in particular on the authorisation process, the definition and identification of organisers and transporters and of their obligations, in order to establish a clear chain of responsibility and transparent communication between farmers, transporters and veterinarians with the competent authorities; calls for the introduction of dissuasive measures, including financial penalties, to prevent dead animals from being discarded in the sea or on transport routes in accordance with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (the Marpol Convention);

118.

Calls on the Member States to ensure that proper and sufficient facilities are in place within 30 km of borders or ports in order to unload, feed and water animals and allow them to rest properly, thereby safeguarding animal well-being when delays occur; calls on the Member States to not approve transport in case of absence of such facilities;

119.

Calls on the Commission to draw up a list of ports with adequate animal inspection facilities based on information from the Member States and appropriate monitoring by the Commission;

120.

Calls for Member States to ensure that such facilities are actually used, when unloading is required, before the loading of animals on vessels and that animals are not kept inside trucks for long periods while waiting for loading on a vessel;

121.

Calls on the Member States, moreover, to cooperate better in planning livestock transport in order to prevent excessive build-ups at border controls;

122.

Notes the need to look into opportunities for improving the quality of sea transport for high-health breeding animals and allowing them to rest in the vehicle where unloading them might compromise their health status;

123.

Calls on the border or port Member States, which are responsible for checking road vehicles and vessels heading for third countries, to penalise any infringements of EU legislation;

124.

Considers the mandatory presence of an independent veterinarian as essential, proportionate to the number of animals, during rest periods at official lairage facilities, and loading and unloading, in particular for long-distance transport; calls on the Member States to introduce mandatory provisions for sea journeys, ensuring the presence of veterinarians or, as last resort, a certified professional with appropriate skills, on board for the whole duration of the sea journey, in order to verify the implementation of the relevant animal health and welfare standards and provide real-time support for sick or injured animals on vessels, as well as to adjust the watering and feeding of the animals to their immediate needs;

125.

Calls for mandatory provisions on conducting inspections after the loading of a vessel in order to prevent accidents;

126.

Considers fundamental the mandatory presence at loading and final destination of long journeys to non-EU countries, of an independent veterinarian; stresses that the presence of a veterinarian will enable reassessment of the fitness for transport and can help to ensure compliance with EU legislation and enforcement of the relevant CJEU ruling;

Transport of live animals to third countries

127.

Calls on the Member States to inspect all consignments at the point of loading and at the point of reaching the final destination for long journeys to non-EU countries and carefully assess in order to develop procedures for the inspections, covering areas such as the amount of feed and water for the duration of the journey, the space and headroom for the animals, the quality, placement and proper functioning of the drinking devices according to the needs of the animals being transported, the quality of the bedding, and to ensure that no unfit animal is loaded; calls on the Commission to intervene against Member States that approve live exports when enforcement of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-424/13 (9) cannot be guaranteed;

128.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to gather comprehensive data and to include in the revision of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 a requirement to produce reports on the state of health of the animals and their mortality on arrival at the place of destination;

129.

Insists on the creation and implementation of a priority lane at all external, as well as internal EU borders, specifically intended for animal transports, including adequate resting facilities according to the requirements of the animals being transported, in order to reduce the length of the journey and eliminate waiting times, to minimise, as much as possible, any delays that can negatively impact the animals’ welfare and to reduce the overall duration of the journey; recommends that documents be sent in advance in electronic format to the receiving authorities;

130.

Insists that regarding the transport of live animals to third countries, consignments should only be authorised once the competent authority has obtained assurance the submitted journey log is fully completed, realistic with provable evidence and assurance that Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 will be effectively implemented until final destination including during the stages of the journey taking place outside the EU, in line with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-424/13; calls therefore on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that the rules that apply within the EU also apply to animal transport shipments leaving the Union; notes that recently some countries/regions defended their decision to restrict long-distance transport of animals, namely regarding live exports and transport of specific animal categories, notably when journeys require a 24-hour stop, due to the absence of control posts in third countries;

131.

Calls on the Commission to develop a list of third countries applying rules at least as protective as those in the EU, where export of live farm animals may be directly authorised based on an international agreement; at the same time, calls on the Commission to address the issue of non-EU countries using their certification to act as transit hubs for transporting animals towards non-certified third countries; calls on the Commission to establish, for other cases, a certified control system that ensures compliance with EU legislation in any part of the journey in the case of transport to third countries; in this regard, calls on the Commission to assess examples of best practice regarding certification and audit instruments to ensure traceability and welfare during transport of live animals to third countries;

132.

Recognises that there is no control system currently in place for transport to third countries, leading to situations where animal exports to third countries often do not respect Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 and are often in violation of the Court of Justice ruling C-424/13 on this matter; calls for a transport of animals between the EU and third countries to only be allowed when the European standards as established by Court of Justice ruling C-424/13 can be ensured;

133.

Calls on the Commission to seek uniform animal welfare standards during transport between the EU and non-EU countries in bilateral trade negotiations in order to prevent European farmers from falling victim to unfair competition;

134.

Insists on the need to strengthen cooperation and communication with third countries, in particular on mutual assistance and the rapid sharing of information, and on carrying out different initiatives with a view to raising awareness and promoting the implementation of EU standards in third countries, especially for meat or animal products imported into the EU;

135.

Recommends that the Commission task its auditors, comprising veterinarians and technical engineers, with carrying out in-depth inspections and assessments in order to develop a centralised, audited and accredited list of the rest facilities available in third countries, in compliance with the requirements of the Regulation (EC) No 1/2005; calls on the Member States not to approve journey logs in future unless confirmation has been provided that the proposed rest facilities are actually included on the aforementioned list and therefore ensure the necessary conditions for unloading the animals; stresses, in addition, that confirmation of a booking reservation for each rest facility is essential to guarantee that there is enough space available for all of the animals detailed in the transport plan;

136.

Notes the need to look into opportunities for improving the quality of transport for high-health breeding animals and allowing them to rest in the vehicle where unloading them might compromise their health status;

137.

Considers it essential to increase financial support for foreign aid and international cooperation, particularly for third countries that require investment with regard to, for example, the cooling of carcasses or handling of germinal products;

138.

Reiterates the importance of enforceable trade and sustainable development chapters in all EU trade agreements, as a means of guaranteeing that the greater regulatory ambitions put forward are consistent with EU trade policy and complied with by third countries that have signed trade agreements with the EU; underlines that trade and sustainable development chapters should also take account of equivalent standards of production, in particular animal welfare;

139.

Calls on the Commission to use EU trade policy as leverage to increase compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 outside of the EU, while maintaining the objective of economic growth and job creation in the EU and guaranteeing that those compliance costs do not disproportionately affect EU businesses;

140.

Calls for mandatory compliance with EU animal protection and welfare standards, including for imports from third countries, in order to ensure the competitiveness of European producers;

Reporting

141.

Demands that all Member States report to the Commission every year on the numbers of species of animals transported within and exported outside the EU, the controls carried out during these transports provided with evidence, the detected violations during these transports provided with evidence and the follow-up action taken by the Member States, which should be made publicly available by the Commission within two months of submission by the Member State;

142.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to report annually to Parliament on their actions to improve the protection and welfare of animals during transport;

o

o o

143.

Instructs its President to forward this recommendation and the final report of the Committee of Inquiry to the Council, the Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

(1)  OJ L 113, 19.5.1995, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 239 I, 24.7.2020, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 3, 5.1.2005, p. 1.

(4)  Special Report No 31/2018 of 14 November 2018 entitled ‘Animal welfare in the EU: Closing the gap between ambitious goals and practical implementation’.

(5)  EFSA, ‘Animal transport: help us prepare our assessment’, 15 April 2021.

(6)  See the judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 2004, Commission of the European CommunitiesKingdom of the Netherlands, C-113/02, ECLI:EU:C:2004:616 and the judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2008, Danske SvineproducenterJustitsministeriet, Case C-491/06, ECLI:EU:C:2008:263.

(7)  Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on official controls and other official activities performed to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health and plant protection products (OJ L 95, 7.4.2017, p. 1).

(8)  Commission Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, Health and Food Audits and Analysis, Unit F2: Animals, network document from National Contact Points entitled ‘Network document on livestock vessels’, 2020.

(9)  Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 April 2015, Zuchtvieh-Export GmbHStadt Kempten, Case C-424/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:259.


III Preparatory acts

European Parliament

Thursday 20 January 2022

2.9.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/35


P9_TA(2022)0001

Numerical strength of the standing committees

European Parliament decision of 20 January 2022 on the numerical strength of the standing committees (2021/3026(RSO))

(2022/C 336/05)

The European Parliament,

having regard to the proposal from the Conference of Presidents,

having regard to its decision of 15 January 2014 on the powers and responsibilities of the standing committees (1) and its decision of 18 June 2020 on setting up a subcommittee on tax matters (2),

having regard to Rule 206 of its Rules of Procedure,

1.

Decides that the numerical strength of the standing committees and subcommittees shall be as follows:

I.

Committee on Foreign Affairs: 79 members,

II.

Committee on Development: 26 members,

III.

Committee on International Trade: 43 members,

IV.

Committee on Budgets: 41 members,

V.

Committee on Budgetary Control: 30 members,

VI.

Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs: 61 members,

VII.

Committee on Employment and Social Affairs: 55 members,

VIII.

Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety: 88 members,

IX.

Committee on Industry, Research and Energy: 78 members,

X.

Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection: 45 members,

XI.

Committee on Transport and Tourism: 49 members,

XII.

Committee on Regional Development: 43 members,

XIII.

Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development: 48 members,

XIV.

Committee on Fisheries: 28 members,

XV.

Committee on Culture and Education: 31 members,

XVI.

Committee on Legal Affairs: 25 members,

XVII.

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs: 69 members,

XVIII.

Committee on Constitutional Affairs: 28 members,

XIX.

Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality: 37 members,

XX.

Committee on Petitions: 35 members,

Subcommittee on Human Rights: 30 members,

Subcommittee on Security and Defence: 30 members,

Subcommittee on Tax Matters: 30 members;

2.

Decides, with reference to the decisions of the Conference of Presidents of 30 June 2019 and 9 January 2020 relating to the composition of committee bureaux, that the committee bureaux may consist of up to four vice-chairs;

3.

Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and the Commission, for information.

(1)  OJ C 482, 23.12.2016, p. 160.

(2)  OJ C 362, 8.9.2021, p. 181.


2.9.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/37


P9_TA(2022)0002

Nomination of a member of the Court of Auditors — Jan Gregor

European Parliament decision of 20 January 2022 on the nomination of Jan Gregor as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C9-0405/2021 — 2021/0802(NLE))

(Consultation)

(2022/C 336/06)

The European Parliament,

having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0405/2021),

having regard to Rule 129 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A9-0002/2022),

A.

whereas, by letter of 5 November 2021, the Council consulted Parliament on the nomination of Jan Gregor as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

B.

whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control then proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

C.

whereas the committee subsequently held a hearing with the nominee on 10 January 2022, at which the nominee made an opening statement and then answered questions put by the members of the committee;

1.

Delivers a favourable opinion on the Council’s nomination of Jan Gregor as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

2.

Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

2.9.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/38


P9_TA(2022)0003

Nomination of a member of the Court of Auditors — Marek Opiola

European Parliament decision of 20 January 2022 on the nomination of Marek Opiola as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C9-0406/2021 — 2021/0803(NLE))

(Consultation)

(2022/C 336/07)

The European Parliament,

having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0406/2021),

having regard to Rule 129 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A9-0004/2022),

A.

whereas, by letter of 5 November 2021, the Council consulted Parliament on the nomination of Marek Opiola as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

B.

whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control then proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

C.

whereas the committee subsequently held a hearing with the nominee on 10 January 2022, at which the nominee made an opening statement and then answered questions put by the members of the committee;

1.

Delivers an unfavourable opinion on the Council’s nomination of Marek Opiola as a Member of the Court of Auditors and asks the Council to withdraw its nomination and submit a new one to Parliament;

2.

Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

2.9.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/39


P9_TA(2022)0004

Nomination of a member of the Court of Auditors — Mihails Kozlovs

European Parliament decision of 20 January 2022 on the nomination of Mihails Kozlovs as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C9-0407/2021 — 2021/0804(NLE))

(Consultation)

(2022/C 336/08)

The European Parliament,

having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0407/2021),

having regard to Rule 129 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A9-0003/2022),

A.

whereas, by letter of 5 November 2021, the Council consulted Parliament on the nomination of Mihails Kozlovs as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

B.

whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control then proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

C.

whereas the committee subsequently held a hearing with the nominee on 10 January 2022, at which the nominee made an opening statement and then answered questions put by the members of the committee;

1.

Delivers a favourable opinion on the Council’s nomination of Mihails Kozlovs as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

2.

Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

2.9.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/40


P9_TA(2022)0005

Nomination of a member of the Court of Auditors — Jorg Kristijan Petrovič

European Parliament decision of 20 January 2022 on the nomination of Jorg Kristijan Petrovič as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C9-0408/2021 — 2021/0805(NLE))

(Consultation)

(2022/C 336/09)

The European Parliament,

having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0408/2021),

having regard to Rule 129 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A9-0005/2022),

A.

whereas, by letter of 5 November 2021, the Council consulted Parliament on the nomination of Jorg Kristijan Petrovič as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

B.

whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control then proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

C.

whereas the committee subsequently held a hearing with the nominee on 10 January 2022, at which the nominee made an opening statement and then answered questions put by the members of the committee;

1.

Delivers a favourable opinion on the Council’s nomination of Jorg Kristijan Petrovič as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

2.

Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

2.9.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/41


P9_TA(2022)0006

European Medicines Agency ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution of 20 January 2022 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a reinforced role for the European Medicines Agency in crisis preparedness and management for medicinal products and medical devices (COM(2020)0725 — C9-0365/2020 — 2020/0321(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

(2022/C 336/10)

The European Parliament,

having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2020)0725),

having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 114 and Article 168(4), point (c), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C9-0365/2020),

having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

having regard to the reasoned opinion submitted, within the framework of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, by the French Senate, asserting that the draft legislative act does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity,

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 27 April 2021 (1),

having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 7 May 2021 (2),

having regard to the provisional agreement approved by the committee responsible under Rule 74(4) of its Rules of Procedure and the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 10 November 2021 to approve Parliament’s position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

having regard to Rules 59 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy,

having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A9-0216/2021),

1.

Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out (3);

2.

Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;

3.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

(1)  OJ C 286, 16.7.2021, p. 109.

(2)  OJ C 300, 27.7.2021, p. 87.

(3)  This position replaces the amendments adopted on 8 July 2021 (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0351).


P9_TC1-COD(2020)0321

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 20 January 2022 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2022/… of the European Parliament and of the Council on a reinforced role for the European Medicines Agency in crisis preparedness and management for medicinal products and medical devices

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) 2022/123.)


2.9.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/42


P9_TA(2022)0007

Objection to a delegated act: Determining cases where identity data may be considered as same or similar for the purpose of the multiple identity detection pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2019/817

European Parliament resolution of 20 January 2022 on the Commission delegated regulation of 29 September 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2019/817 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards determining cases where identity data may be considered as same or similar for the purpose of the multiple identity detection (C(2021)05056 — 2021/2913(DEA))

(2022/C 336/11)

The European Parliament,

having regard to the Commission delegated regulation (C(2021)05056),

having regard to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2019/817 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on establishing a framework for interoperability between EU information systems in the field of borders and visa and amending Regulations (EC) No 767/2008, (EU) 2016/399, (EU) 2017/2226, (EU) 2018/1240, (EU) 2018/1726 and (EU) 2018/1861 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Decisions 2004/512/EC and 2008/633/JHA (1), and in particular Articles 28(5) and 73(6) thereof,

having regard to Rule 111(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the motion for a resolution by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs,

A.

whereas Article 3 of the Commission delegated regulation provides that the cases where identity data may be considered as similar are set out in Annex II thereto;

B.

whereas Annex II, point 2, of the Commission delegated regulation provides that ‘eu-LISA shall use an algorithm in order to calculate the similarity between identity data across different data fields from the different EU information systems’;

C.

whereas Annex II, point 2, of the Commission delegated regulation further provides that ‘[t]hat algorithm shall be based on previously established thresholds of similarity.’;

D.

whereas Annex II, point 2, of the Commission delegated regulation moreover provides that ‘[i]n order to define that algorithm, eu-LISA shall be assisted and advised by experts from the Commission, the Member States and the Union agencies using the EU information systems and interoperability components.’;

E.

whereas Article 28(5) of Regulation (EU) 2019/817 requires the Commission to adopt delegated acts laying down the procedures to determine the cases in which identity data can be considered to be the same or similar;

F.

whereas the Commission delegated regulation clearly does not lay down the procedures to determine the cases in which identity data can be considered to be similar, but sub-delegates that power to eu-LISA and to experts from the Commission, the Member States and the Union agencies using the EU information systems and interoperability components;

1.

Objects to the Commission delegated regulation;

2.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission and to notify it that the delegated regulation cannot enter into force;

3.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

(1)  OJ L 135, 22.5.2019, p. 27.


2.9.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/43


P9_TA(2022)0008

Objection to a delegated act: Determining cases where identity data may be considered as same or similar for the purpose of the multiple identity detection pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2019/818

European Parliament resolution of 20 January 2022 on the Commission delegated regulation of 29 September 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2019/818 of the European Parliament and Council as regards determining cases where identity data may be considered as same or similar for the purpose of the multiple identity detection (C(2021)05057 — 2021/2912(DEA))

(2022/C 336/12)

The European Parliament,

having regard to the Commission delegated regulation (C(2021)05057),

having regard to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2019/818 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on establishing a framework for interoperability between EU information systems in the field of police and judicial cooperation, asylum and migration and amending Regulations (EU) 2018/1726, (EU) 2018/1862 and (EU) 2019/816 (1), and in particular Articles 28(5) and 69 (6) thereof,

having regard to Rule 111(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the motion for a resolution by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs,

A.

whereas Article 3 of the Commission delegated regulation provides that the cases where identity data may be considered as similar are set out in Annex II thereto;

B.

whereas Annex II, point 2, of the Commission delegated regulation provides that ‘eu-LISA shall use an algorithm in order to calculate the similarity between identity data across different data fields from the different EU information systems’;

C.

whereas Annex II, point 2, of the Commission delegated regulation further provides that ‘[t]hat algorithm shall be based on previously established thresholds of similarity.’;

D.

whereas Annex II, point 2, of the Commission delegated regulation moreover provides that ‘[i]n order to define that algorithm, eu-LISA shall be assisted and advised by experts from the Commission, the Member States and the Union agencies using the EU information systems and interoperability components.’;

E.

whereas Article 28(5) of Regulation (EU) 2019/818 requires the Commission to adopt delegated acts laying down the procedures to determine the cases in which identity data can be considered to be the same or similar;

F.

whereas the Commission delegated regulation clearly does not lay down the procedures to determine the cases in which identity data can be considered to be similar, but sub-delegates that power to eu-LISA and to experts from the Commission, the Member States and the Union agencies using the EU information systems and interoperability components;

1.

Objects to the Commission delegated regulation;

2.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission and to notify it that the delegated regulation cannot enter into force;

3.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

(1)  OJ L 135, 22.5.2019, p. 85.


2.9.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/44


P9_TA(2022)0009

Non-objection to a delegated act: additional requirements for Member States in their CAP Strategic Plans for 2023-2027 and rules for GAEC standard 1

European Parliament decision to raise no objections to the Commission delegated regulation of 7 December 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council with additional requirements for certain types of intervention specified by Member States in their CAP Strategic Plans for the period 2023 to 2027 under that Regulation as well as rules on the ratio for the good agricultural and environmental condition (GAEC) standard 1 (C(2021)09115 — 2021/3008(DEA))

(2022/C 336/13)

The European Parliament,

having regard to the Commission delegated regulation (C(2021)09115),

having regard to the Commission’s letter of 7 December 2021 asking Parliament to declare that it will raise no objections to the delegated regulation,

having regard to the letter from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development to the Chair of the Conference of Committee Chairs of 11 January 2022,

having regard to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), and in particular Article 4(8), Article 13(3), Article 37(5), Article 38(5) and Article 39(3) and Article 45, points (a) to (i), Article 56, points (a), (b) and (c), and Article 84, points (a) and (b), thereof,

having regard to Rule 111(6) of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the recommendation for a decision of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,

having regard to the fact that no objections have been raised within the period laid down in Rule 111(6), third and fourth indents, of its Rules of Procedure, which expired on 20 January 2022,

A.

whereas Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council requires Member States to submit national Strategic Plans (‘CAP Strategic Plans’) for approval by the Commission;

B.

whereas Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 empowers the Commission to adopt additional requirements for the design of the interventions to be specified in the CAP Strategic Plans, in the area of direct payments, of certain agricultural sectors referred to in Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) and in the area of rural development, as well as common rules for those areas as regards the ratio for the good agricultural and environmental condition (GAEC) standard 1;

C.

whereas all those additional requirements are to be considered by the Member States when designing their CAP Strategic Plans that need to be transmitted or confirmed to the Commission as soon as possible;

D.

whereas the delegated regulation lays down the additional requirements for certain types of intervention specified by Member States in their CAP Strategic Plans for the period 2023 to 2027, as well as rules on the ratio for GAEC standard 1; whereas it is therefore appropriate to consider those additional requirements as fully necessary and urgent now;

1.

Declares that it has no objections to the delegated regulation;

2.

Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and the Commission.

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 and (EU) No 1307/2013 (OJ L 435, 6.12.2021, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671).


2.9.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/46


P9_TA(2022)0010

Non-objection to a delegated act: rules on paying agencies and other bodies, financial management, clearance of accounts, securities and use of euro

European Parliament decision to raise no objections to the Commission delegated regulation of 7 December 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 of the European Parliament and of the Council with rules on paying agencies and other bodies, financial management, clearance of accounts, securities and use of euro (C(2021)09119 — 2021/3009(DEA))

(2022/C 336/14)

The European Parliament,

having regard to the Commission delegated regulation (C(2021)09119),

having regard to the Commission’s letter of 7 December 2021 asking Parliament to declare that it will raise no objections to the delegated regulation,

having regard to the letter from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development to the Chair of the Conference of Committee Chairs of 11 January 2022,

having regard to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), and in particular Article 11(1), Article 23(2), Article 38(2), Article 40(3), Article 41(3), Article 47(1), Article 52(1), Article 54(4), Article 55(6), Article 64(3), Article 76(2), Article 94(5) and (6) and Article 102 thereof,

having regard to Rule 111(6) of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the recommendation for a decision of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,

having regard to the fact that no objections have been raised within the period laid down in Rule 111(6), third and fourth indents, of its Rules of Procedure, which expired on 20 January 2022,

A.

whereas Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 lays down rules on paying agencies and other bodies, financial management, clearance of accounts, securities and use of euro;

B.

whereas Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) requires Member States to submit their common agricultural policy (CAP) Strategic Plans for approval by the Commission;

C.

whereas, in the draft delegated regulation, rules on paying agencies and other bodies, financial management, clearance of accounts, securities and use of euro, there is a substantive link and an interconnection between them in the day-to-day management of the CAP expenditure, and it is, therefore, appropriate to lay down those rules in the same delegated regulation;

D.

whereas, in the draft delegated regulation, rules on paying agencies and other bodies, financial management, clearance of accounts, securities and use of euro are set for the day-to-day management of the new CAP, which Member States need to translate into their CAP Strategic Plans and whereas it is, therefore, appropriate to consider those rules as urgent;

1.

Declares that it has no objections to the delegated regulation;

2.

Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and the Commission.

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (OJ L 435, 6.12.2021, p. 187).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 and (EU) No 1307/2013 (OJ L 435, 6.12.2021, p. 1).


2.9.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/48


P9_TA(2022)0014

Digital Services Act ***I

Amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 20 January 2022 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (COM(2020)0825 — C9-0418/2020 — 2020/0361(COD)) (1)

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

(2022/C 336/15)

Amendment 1

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1)

Information society services and especially intermediary services have become an important part of the Union’s economy and daily life of Union citizens. Twenty years after the adoption of the existing legal framework applicable to such services laid down in Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (25), new and innovative business models and services, such as online social networks and marketplaces, have allowed business users and consumers to impart and access information and engage in transactions in novel ways. A majority of Union citizens now uses those services on a daily basis. However, the digital transformation and increased use of those services has also resulted in new risks and challenges, both for individual users and for society as a whole.

(1)

Information society services and especially intermediary services have become an important part of the Union’s economy and daily life of Union citizens. Twenty years after the adoption of the existing legal framework applicable to such services laid down in Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (25), new and innovative business models and services, such as online social networks and marketplaces, have allowed business users and consumers to impart and access information and engage in transactions in novel and innovative ways , transforming their communication, consumption and business habits . A majority of Union citizens now uses those services on a daily basis. However, the digital transformation and increased use of those services has also resulted in new risks and challenges, for individual users , companies and for society as a whole.

Amendment 2

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2)

Member States are increasingly introducing, or are considering introducing, national laws on the matters covered by this Regulation, imposing, in particular, diligence requirements for providers of intermediary services. Those diverging national laws negatively affect the internal market, which, pursuant to Article 26 of the Treaty, comprises an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods and services and freedom of establishment are ensured, taking into account the inherently cross-border nature of the internet, which is generally used to provide those services. The conditions for the provision of intermediary services across the internal market should be harmonised, so as to provide businesses with access to new markets and opportunities to exploit the benefits of the internal market, while allowing consumers and other recipients of the services to have increased choice.

(2)

Member States are increasingly introducing, or are considering introducing, national laws on the matters covered by this Regulation, imposing, in particular, diligence requirements for providers of intermediary services , and resulting in a fragmentation of the internal market . Those diverging national laws negatively affect the internal market, which, pursuant to Article 26 of the Treaty, comprises an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods and services and freedom of establishment are ensured, taking into account the inherently cross-border nature of the internet, which is generally used to provide those services. The conditions for the provision of intermediary services across the internal market should be harmonised, so as to provide businesses with access to new markets and opportunities to exploit the benefits of the internal market, while allowing consumers and other recipients of the services to have increased choice , without lock-in effects, and reducing administrative burden for intermediary services, especially for micro, small and medium sized enterprises .

Amendment 3

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3)

Responsible and diligent behaviour by providers of intermediary services is essential for a safe, predictable and trusted online environment and for allowing Union citizens and other persons to exercise their fundamental rights guaranteed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘Charter’), in particular the freedom of expression and information and the freedom to conduct a business, and the right to non-discrimination.

(3)

Responsible and diligent behaviour by providers of intermediary services is essential for a safe , accessible , predictable and trusted online environment and for allowing Union citizens and other persons to exercise their fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘Charter’), in particular the rights to privacy, to protection of personal data, respect for human dignity, private and family life, the freedom of expression and information , the freedom and the pluralism of the media, and the freedom to conduct a business, a high level of consumer protection, the equality between women and men and the right to non-discrimination. Children have particular rights enshrined in Article 24 of the Charter and in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). As such, the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration in all matters affecting them. The UNCRC General comment No 25 on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment formally sets out how these rights apply to the digital world.

Amendment 4

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4)

Therefore, in order to safeguard and improve the functioning of the internal market, a targeted set of uniform, effective and proportionate mandatory rules should be established at Union level. This Regulation provides the conditions for innovative digital services to emerge and to scale up in the internal market. The approximation of national regulatory measures at Union level concerning the requirements for providers of intermediary services is necessary in order to avoid and put an end to fragmentation of the internal market and to ensure legal certainty, thus reducing uncertainty for developers and fostering interoperability. By using requirements that are technology neutral, innovation should not be hampered but instead be stimulated.

(4)

In order to safeguard and improve the functioning of the internal market, a targeted set of uniform, effective and proportionate mandatory rules should be established at Union level. This Regulation provides the conditions for innovative digital services to emerge and to scale up in the internal market. The approximation of national regulatory measures at Union level concerning the requirements for providers of intermediary services is necessary in order to avoid and put an end to fragmentation of the internal market and to ensure legal certainty, thus reducing uncertainty for developers , protecting consumers and fostering interoperability. By using requirements that are technology neutral, innovation should not be hampered but instead be stimulated , while respecting fundamental rights .

Amendment 5

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(4a)

Given the importance of digital services, it is essential that this Regulation ensures a regulatory framework which ensures full, equal and unrestricted access to intermediary services for all recipients of services, including persons with disabilities. Therefore, it is important that accessibility requirements for intermediary services, including their user interfaces, are consistent with existing Union law, such as the European Accessibility Act and the Web Accessibility Directive and that Union law is further developed, so that no one is left behind as result of digital innovation.

Amendment 6

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6)

In practice, certain providers of intermediary services intermediate in relation to services that may or may not be provided by electronic means, such as remote information technology services, transport, accommodation or delivery services. This Regulation should apply only to intermediary services and not affect requirements set out in Union or national law relating to products or services intermediated through intermediary services, including in situations where the intermediary service constitutes an integral part of another service which is not an intermediary service as specified in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

(6)

In practice, certain providers of intermediary services intermediate in relation to services that may or may not be provided by electronic means, such as remote information technology services, transport of persons and goods , accommodation or delivery services. This Regulation should apply only to intermediary services and not affect requirements set out in Union or national law relating to products or services intermediated through intermediary services, including in situations where the intermediary service constitutes an integral part of another service which is not an intermediary service as specified in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Amendment 7

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8)

Such a substantial connection to the Union should be considered to exist where the service provider has an establishment in the Union or, in its absence, on the basis of the existence of a significant number of users in one or more Member States, or the targeting of activities towards one or more Member States. The targeting of activities towards one or more Member States can be determined on the basis of all relevant circumstances, including factors such as the use of a language or a currency generally used in that Member State, or the possibility of ordering products or services, or using a national top level domain. The targeting of activities towards a Member State could also be derived from the availability of an application in the relevant national application store, from the provision of local advertising or advertising in the language used in that Member State, or from the handling of customer relations such as by providing customer service in the language generally used in that Member State. A substantial connection should also be assumed where a service provider directs its activities to one or more Member State as set out in Article 17(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (27). On the other hand, mere technical accessibility of a website from the Union cannot, on that ground alone, be considered as establishing a substantial connection to the Union.

(8)

Such a substantial connection to the Union should be considered to exist where the service provider has an establishment in the Union or, in its absence, on the basis of the directing of activities towards one or more Member States. The directing of activities towards one or more Member States can be determined on the basis of all relevant circumstances, including factors such as the use of a language or a currency generally used in that Member State, or the possibility of ordering products or services, or using a national top level domain. The directing of activities towards a Member State could also be derived from the availability of an application in the relevant national application store, from the provision of local advertising or advertising in the language used in that Member State, or from the handling of customer relations such as by providing customer service in the language generally used in that Member State. A substantial connection should also be assumed where a service provider directs its activities to one or more Member State as set out in Article 17(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (27) . On the other hand, mere technical accessibility of a website from the Union cannot, on that ground alone, be considered as establishing a substantial connection to the Union.

Amendment 8

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9)

This Regulation should complement, yet not affect the application of rules resulting from other acts of Union law regulating certain aspects of the provision of intermediary services, in particular Directive 2000/31/EC, with the exception of those changes introduced by this Regulation, Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as amended (28), and Regulation (EU) …/.. of the European Parliament and of the Council (29) – proposed Terrorist Content Online Regulation . Therefore, this Regulation leaves those other acts, which are to be considered lex specialis in relation to the generally applicable framework set out in this Regulation, unaffected. However, the rules of this Regulation apply in respect of issues that are not or not fully addressed by those other acts as well as issues on which those other acts leave Member States the possibility of adopting certain measures at national level .

(9)

This Regulation should complement, yet not affect the application of rules resulting from other acts of Union law regulating certain aspects of the provision of intermediary services, in particular Directive 2000/31/EC, with the exception of those changes introduced by this Regulation, Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as amended (28), and Regulation (EU) 2021/784 of the European Parliament and of the Council (29). Therefore, this Regulation leaves those other acts, which are to be considered lex specialis in relation to the generally applicable framework set out in this Regulation, unaffected. However, the rules of this Regulation should apply in respect of issues that are not or not fully addressed by those other acts as well as issues on which those other acts leave Member States the possibility of adopting certain measures . To assist Member States and service providers, the Commission should provide guidelines as to how to interpret the interaction and complementary nature between different Union legal acts and this Regulation and how to prevent any duplication of requirements on providers or potential conflicts in the interpretation of similar requirements . In particular, the guidelines should clarify any potential conflicts between the conditions and obligations laid down in legal acts, referred to in this Regulation, explaining which legal act should prevail.

Amendment 9

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 9 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(9a)

In line with Article 167(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, cultural aspects should be taken into account, in particular in order to respect and to promote the cultural and linguistic diversity. It is essential that this Regulation contributes to protect the freedom of expression and information, media freedom and to foster media pluralism as well as cultural and linguistic diversity.

Amendment 10

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 10

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(10)

For reasons of clarity, it should also be specified that this Regulation is without prejudice to Regulation (EU) 2019/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council (30) and Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council (31), Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (32) and Regulation […/…] on temporary derogation from certain provisions of Directive 2002/58/EC (33) as well as Union law on consumer protection, in particular Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (34), Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (35) and Directive 93/13/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council (36), as amended by Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and of the Council (37), and on the protection of personal data, in particular Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (38). The protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data is solely governed by the rules of Union law on that subject, in particular Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC. This Regulation is also without prejudice to the rules of Union law on working conditions.

(10)

For reasons of clarity, it should also be specified that this Regulation is without prejudice to Regulation (EU) 2019/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council (30) and Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council (31), Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (32) and Regulation […/…] on temporary derogation from certain provisions of Directive 2002/58/EC (33) , Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council  (33a) , as well as Union law on consumer protection, in particular Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (34), Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (35) and Directive 93/13/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council (36), as amended by Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and of the Council (37) , Directive (EU) 2019/882 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Regulation (EU) 2019/1020, Directive 2001/95/EC, Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, Regulation (EU) 2017/2394  (37a), and on the protection of personal data, in particular Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (38). The protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data is solely governed by the rules of Union law on that subject, in particular Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC. This Regulation is also without prejudice to the rules of Union or national law on working conditions.

Amendment 11

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 11

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(11)

It should be clarified that this Regulation is without prejudice to the rules of Union law on copyright and related rights, which establish specific rules and procedures that should remain unaffected.

(11)

It should be clarified that this Regulation is without prejudice to the rules of Union law on copyright and related rights, in particular Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council, which establish specific rules and procedures that should remain unaffected.

Amendment 12

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12)

In order to achieve the objective of ensuring a safe, predictable and trusted online environment, for the purpose of this Regulation the concept of ‘illegal content’ should be defined broadly and also covers information relating to illegal content, products, services and activities. In particular, that concept should be understood to refer to information, irrespective of its form, that under the applicable law is either itself illegal, such as illegal hate speech or terrorist content and unlawful discriminatory content, or that relates to activities that are illegal, such as the sharing of images depicting child sexual abuse, unlawful non-consensual sharing of private images, online stalking, the sale of non-compliant or counterfeit products, the non-authorised use of copyright protected material or activities involving infringements of consumer protection law. In this regard, it is immaterial whether the illegality of the information or activity results from Union law or from national law that is consistent with Union law and what the precise nature or subject matter is of the law in question.

(12)

In order to achieve the objective of ensuring a safe , accessible , predictable and trusted online environment, for the purpose of this Regulation the concept of ‘illegal content’ should underpin the general idea that what is illegal offline should also be illegal online. The concept of ‘illegal content’ should be defined appropriately and should cover information relating to illegal content, products, services and activities. In particular, that concept should be understood to refer to information, irrespective of its form, that under the applicable Union or national law is either itself illegal, such as illegal hate speech, or terrorist content and unlawful discriminatory content, or that is not in compliance with Union law since it refers to activities that are illegal, such as the sharing of images depicting child sexual abuse, unlawful non-consensual sharing of private images, online stalking, the sale of non-compliant or counterfeit products, illegal trading of animals, plants and substances, the non-authorised use of copyright protected material or activities involving infringements of consumer protection law , the provision of illegal services in particular in the area of accommodation services on short-term rental platforms non-compliant with Union or national law. In this regard, it is immaterial whether the illegality of the information or activity results from Union law or from national law that is in conformity with Union law , including the Charter and what the precise nature or subject matter is of the law in question.

Amendment 13

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13)

Considering the particular characteristics of the services concerned and the corresponding need to make the providers thereof subject to certain specific obligations, it is necessary to distinguish, within the broader category of providers of hosting services as defined in this Regulation, the subcategory of online platforms. Online platforms, such as social networks or online marketplaces, should be defined as providers of hosting services that not only store information provided by the recipients of the service at their request, but that also disseminate that information to the public, again at their request. However, in order to avoid imposing overly broad obligations, providers of hosting services should not be considered as online platforms where the dissemination to the public is merely a minor and purely ancillary feature of another service and that feature cannot, for objective technical reasons, be used without that other, principal service, and the integration of that feature is not a means to circumvent the applicability of the rules of this Regulation applicable to online platforms. For example, the comments section in an online newspaper could constitute such a feature, where it is clear that it is ancillary to the main service represented by the publication of news under the editorial responsibility of the publisher.

(13)

Considering the particular characteristics of the services concerned and the corresponding need to make the providers thereof subject to certain specific obligations, it is necessary to distinguish, within the broader category of providers of hosting services as defined in this Regulation, the subcategory of online platforms. Online platforms, such as social networks or online marketplaces, should be defined as providers of hosting services that not only store information provided by the recipients of the service at their request, but that also disseminate that information to the public, again at their request. However, in order to avoid imposing overly broad obligations, providers of hosting services should not be considered as online platforms where the dissemination to the public is merely a minor or a purely ancillary feature of another service or functionality of the principal service and that feature or functionality cannot, for objective technical reasons, be used without that other, principal service, and the integration of that feature or functionality is not a means to circumvent the applicability of the rules of this Regulation applicable to online platforms. For example, the comments section in an online newspaper could constitute such a feature, where it is clear that it is ancillary to the main service represented by the publication of news under the editorial responsibility of the publisher. For the purposes of this Regulation, cloud computing services should not be considered to be an online platform in cases where allowing the dissemination of specific content constitutes a minor or ancillary feature. Moreover, cloud computing services, when serving as infrastructure, for example, as the underlining infrastructural storage and computing services of an internet-based application or online platform, should not in itself be seen as disseminating to the public information stored or processed at the request of a recipient of an application or online platform which it hosts.

Amendment 14

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14)

The concept of ‘dissemination to the public’, as used in this Regulation, should entail the making available of information to a potentially unlimited number of persons, that is, making the information easily accessible to users in general without further action by the recipient of the service providing the information being required, irrespective of whether those persons actually access the information in question. The mere possibility to create groups of users of a given service should not , in itself, be understood to mean that the information disseminated in that manner is not disseminated to the public . However, the concept should exclude dissemination of information within closed groups consisting of a finite number of pre-determined persons . Interpersonal communication services, as defined in Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council (39), such as emails or private messaging services, fall outside the scope of this Regulation . Information should be considered disseminated to the public within the meaning of this Regulation only where that occurs upon the direct request by the recipient of the service that provided the information.

(14)

The concept of ‘dissemination to the public’, as used in this Regulation, should entail the making available of information to a potentially unlimited number of persons, that is, making the information easily accessible to users in general without further action by the recipient of the service providing the information being required, irrespective of whether those persons actually access the information in question. Accordingly, where access to information requires registration or admittance to a group of users, that information should be considered to have been disseminated to the public only where users seeking to access the information are automatically registered or admitted without a human decision on whom to grant access . Information exchanged using interpersonal communication services, as defined in Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council (39), such as emails or private messaging services, are not considered to have been disseminated to the public . Information should be considered disseminated to the public within the meaning of this Regulation only where that occurs upon the direct request by the recipient of the service that provided the information.

Amendment 15

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(16)

The legal certainty provided by the horizontal framework of conditional exemptions from liability for providers of intermediary services, laid down in Directive 2000/31/EC, has allowed many novel services to emerge and scale-up across the internal market. That framework should therefore be preserved. However, in view of the divergences when transposing and applying the relevant rules at national level, and for reasons of clarity and coherence, that framework should be incorporated in this Regulation. It is also necessary to clarify certain elements of that framework, having regard to case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

(16)

The legal certainty provided by the horizontal framework of conditional exemptions from liability for providers of intermediary services, laid down in Directive 2000/31/EC, has allowed many novel services to emerge and scale-up across the internal market. That framework should therefore be preserved. However, in view of the divergences when transposing and applying the relevant rules at national level, and for reasons of clarity , consistency, predictability, accessibility and coherence, that framework should be incorporated in this Regulation. It is also necessary to clarify certain elements of that framework, having regard to case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union , as well as technological and market developments .

Amendment 16

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18)

The exemptions from liability established in this Regulation should not apply where, instead of confining itself to providing the services neutrally, by a merely technical and automatic processing of the information provided by the recipient of the service, the provider of intermediary services plays an active role of such a kind as to give it knowledge of, or control over, that information. Those exemptions should accordingly not be available in respect of liability relating to information provided not by the recipient of the service but by the provider of intermediary service itself, including where the information has been developed under the editorial responsibility of that provider.

(18)

The exemptions from liability established in this Regulation should not apply where, instead of confining itself to providing the services neutrally, by a merely technical and automatic processing of the information provided by the recipient of the service, the provider of intermediary services plays an active role of such a kind as to give it knowledge of, or control over, that information. The mere ranking or displaying in an order, or the use of a recommender system should not, however, be deemed as having control over an information. Those exemptions should accordingly not be available in respect of liability relating to information provided not by the recipient of the service but by the provider of intermediary service itself, including where the information has been developed under the editorial responsibility of that provider.

Amendment 17

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20)

A provider of intermediary services that deliberately collaborates with a recipient of the services in order to undertake illegal activities does not provide its service neutrally and should therefore not be able to benefit from the exemptions from liability provided for in this Regulation.

(20)

Where a provider of intermediary services deliberately collaborates with a recipient of the services in order to undertake illegal activities , the service should be deemed not to have been provided neutrally and the provider should therefore not be able to benefit from the exemptions from liability provided for in this Regulation.

Amendment 18

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 21

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(21)

A provider should be able to benefit from the exemptions from liability for ‘mere conduit’ and for ‘caching’ services when it is in no way involved with the information transmitted. This requires, among other things, that the provider does not modify the information that it transmits. However, this requirement should not be understood to cover manipulations of a technical nature which take place in the course of the transmission, as such manipulations do not alter the integrity of the information transmitted.

(21)

A provider should be able to benefit from the exemptions from liability for ‘mere conduit’ and for ‘caching’ services when it is in no way involved in the content of the information transmitted. This requires, among other things, that the provider does not modify the information that it transmits. However, this requirement should not be understood to cover manipulations of a technical nature, which take place in the course of the transmission, as such manipulations do not alter the integrity of the information transmitted.

Amendment 19

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 22

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(22)

In order to benefit from the exemption from liability for hosting services, the provider should, upon obtaining actual knowledge or awareness of illegal content , act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to that content. The removal or disabling of access should be undertaken in the observance of the principle of freedom of expression. The provider can obtain such actual knowledge or awareness through, in particular, its own-initiative investigations or notices submitted to it by individuals or entities in accordance with this Regulation in so far as those notices are sufficiently precise and adequately substantiated to allow a diligent economic operator to reasonably identify, assess and where appropriate act against the allegedly illegal content.

(22)

In order to benefit from the exemption from liability for hosting services, the provider should, after having become aware of the illegal nature of the content and thus obtaining actual knowledge or awareness, act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to that content. The removal or disabling of access should be undertaken in the observance of a high level of consumer protection and of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, including the principle of freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority . The provider can obtain actual knowledge or awareness of the illegal nature of the content through, in particular, its own-initiative investigations or notices submitted to it by individuals or entities in accordance with this Regulation in so far as those notices are sufficiently precise and adequately substantiated to allow a diligent hosting service provider to reasonably identify, assess and where appropriate act against the allegedly illegal content. As long as providers act upon obtaining actual knowledge, they should benefit from the exemptions from liability referred to in this Regulation.

Amendment 20

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 23

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(23)

In order to ensure the effective protection of consumers when engaging in intermediated commercial transactions online, certain providers of hosting services, namely, online platforms that allow consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders, should not be able to benefit from the exemption from liability for hosting service providers established in this Regulation, in so far as those online platforms present the relevant information relating to the transactions at issue in such a way that it leads consumers to believe that the information was provided by those online platforms themselves or by recipients of the service acting under their authority or control, and that those online platforms thus have knowledge of or control over the information, even if that may in reality not be the case. In that regard, is should be determined objectively, on the basis of all relevant circumstances, whether the presentation could lead to such a belief on the side of an average and reasonably well-informed consumer.

(23)

In order to ensure the effective protection of consumers when engaging in intermediated commercial transactions online, certain providers of hosting services, namely, online platforms that allow consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders, should not be able to benefit from the exemption from liability for hosting service providers established in this Regulation, in so far as those online platforms present the relevant information relating to the transactions at issue in such a way that it leads consumers to believe that the information was provided by those online platforms themselves or by recipients of the service acting under their authority or control, and that those online platforms thus have knowledge of or control over the information, even if that may in reality not be the case. In that regard, is should be determined objectively, on the basis of all relevant circumstances, whether the presentation could lead to such a belief on the side of a consumer. Such a belief may arise, for example, where the online platform allowing distance contracts with traders fails to display clearly the identity of the trader pursuant to this Regulation, or is marketing the product or service in its own name rather than using the name of the trader who will supply it, or where the provider determines the final price of the goods or services offered by the trader.

Amendment 21

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(25)

In order to create legal certainty and not to discourage activities aimed at detecting, identifying and acting against illegal content that providers of intermediary services may undertake on a voluntary basis, it should be clarified that the mere fact that providers undertake such activities does not lead to the unavailability of the exemptions from liability set out in this Regulation, provided those activities are carried out in good faith and in a diligent manner. In addition, it is appropriate to clarify that the mere fact that those providers take measures, in good faith, to comply with the requirements of Union law, including those set out in this Regulation as regards the implementation of their terms and conditions, should not lead to the unavailability of those exemptions from liability. Therefore, any such activities and measures that a given provider may have taken should not be taken into account when determining whether the provider can rely on an exemption from liability, in particular as regards whether the provider provides its service neutrally and can therefore fall within the scope of the relevant provision, without this rule however implying that the provider can necessarily rely thereon.

(25)

In order to create legal certainty and not to discourage activities aimed at detecting, identifying and acting against illegal content that providers of intermediary services may undertake on a voluntary basis, it should be clarified that the mere fact that providers undertake such activities does not lead to the unavailability of the exemptions from liability set out in this Regulation, solely because they are carrying out voluntary own-initiative investigations, provided those activities are carried out in good faith and in a diligent manner and are accompanied with additional safeguards against over-removal of legal content. Providers of intermediary services should make best efforts to ensure that where automated tools are used for content moderation, the technology is sufficiently reliable to limit to the maximum extent possible the rate of errors where information is wrongly considered as illegal content . In addition, it is appropriate to clarify that the mere fact that those providers take measures, in good faith, to comply with the requirements of Union law, including those set out in this Regulation as regards the implementation of their terms and conditions, should not lead to the unavailability of those exemptions from liability. Therefore, any such activities and measures that a given provider may have taken should not be taken into account when determining whether the provider can rely on an exemption from liability, in particular as regards whether the provider provides its service neutrally and can therefore fall within the scope of the relevant provision, without this rule however implying that the provider can necessarily rely thereon.

Amendment 22

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 26

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(26)

Whilst the rules in Chapter II of this Regulation concentrate on the exemption from liability of providers of intermediary services, it is important to recall that, despite the generally important role played by those providers, the problem of illegal content and activities online should not be dealt with by solely focusing on their liability and responsibilities. Where possible, third parties affected by illegal content transmitted or stored online should attempt to resolve conflicts relating to such content without involving the providers of intermediary services in question. Recipients of the service should be held liable, where the applicable rules of Union and national law determining such liability so provide, for the illegal content that they provide and may disseminate through intermediary services. Where appropriate, other actors, such as group moderators in closed online environments, in particular in the case of large groups, should also help to avoid the spread of illegal content online, in accordance with the applicable law. Furthermore, where it is necessary to involve information society services providers, including providers of intermediary services, any requests or orders for such involvement should, as a general rule, be directed to the actor that has the technical and operational ability to act against specific items of illegal content, so as to prevent and minimise any possible negative effects for the availability and accessibility of information that is not illegal content.

(26)

Whilst the rules in Chapter II of this Regulation concentrate on the exemption from liability of providers of intermediary services, it is important to recall that, despite the generally important role played by those providers, the problem of illegal content and activities online should not be dealt with by solely focusing on their liability and responsibilities. Where possible, third parties affected by illegal content transmitted or stored online should attempt to resolve conflicts relating to such content without involving the providers of intermediary services in question. Recipients of the service should be held liable, where the applicable rules of Union and national law determining such liability so provide, for the illegal content that they provide and may disseminate through intermediary services. Where appropriate, other actors, such as group moderators in closed and open online environments, in particular in the case of large groups, should also help to avoid the spread of illegal content online, in accordance with the applicable law. Furthermore, where it is necessary to involve information society services providers, including providers of intermediary services, any requests or orders for such involvement should, as a general rule, be directed to the specific provider that has the technical and operational ability to act against specific items of illegal content, so as to prevent and minimise any possible negative effects for the availability and accessibility of information that is not illegal content. Consequently providers should act where they are in the best place to do so.

Amendment 23

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 27

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(27)

Since 2000, new technologies have emerged that improve the availability, efficiency, speed, reliability, capacity and security of systems for the transmission and storage of data online, leading to an increasingly complex online ecosystem. In this regard, it should be recalled that providers of services establishing and facilitating the underlying logical architecture and proper functioning of the internet, including technical auxiliary functions, can also benefit from the exemptions from liability set out in this Regulation, to the extent that their services qualify as ‘mere conduits’, ‘caching’ or hosting services. Such services include, as the case may be, wireless local area networks, domain name system (DNS) services, top–level domain name registries, certificate authorities that issue digital certificates, or content delivery networks, that enable or improve the functions of other providers of intermediary services. Likewise, services used for communications purposes, and the technical means of their delivery, have also evolved considerably, giving rise to online services such as Voice over IP, messaging services and web-based e-mail services, where the communication is delivered via an internet access service. Those services, too, can benefit from the exemptions from liability, to the extent that they qualify as ‘mere conduit’, ‘caching’ or hosting service.

(27)

Since 2000, new technologies have emerged that improve the availability, efficiency, speed, reliability, capacity and security of systems for the transmission and storage of data online, leading to an increasingly complex online ecosystem. In this regard, it should be recalled that providers of services establishing and facilitating the underlying logical architecture and proper functioning of the internet, including technical auxiliary functions, can also benefit from the exemptions from liability set out in this Regulation, to the extent that their services qualify as ‘mere conduits’, ‘caching’ or hosting services. Such services include, as the case may be and among others , wireless local area networks, domain name system (DNS) services, top–level domain name registries, certificate authorities that issue digital certificates , Virtual Private Networks, cloud infrastructure services , or content delivery networks, that enable or improve the functions of other providers of intermediary services. Likewise, services used for communications purposes, and the technical means of their delivery, have also evolved considerably, giving rise to online services such as Voice over IP, messaging services and web-based e-mail services, where the communication is delivered via an internet access service. Those services, too, can benefit from the exemptions from liability, to the extent that they qualify as ‘mere conduit’, ‘caching’ or hosting service.

Amendment 24

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 27 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(27a)

A single webpage or website may include elements that qualify differently between ‘mere conduit’, ‘caching’ or hosting services and the rules for exemptions from liability should apply to each accordingly. For example, a search engine could act solely as a ‘caching’ service as to information included in the results of an inquiry. Elements displayed alongside those results, such as online advertisements, would however still qualify as a hosting service.

Amendments 25 and 517/rev

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 28

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(28)

Providers of intermediary services should not be subject to a monitoring obligation with respect to obligations of a general nature. This does not concern monitoring obligations in a specific case and, in particular, does not affect orders by national authorities in accordance with national legislation, in accordance with the conditions established in this Regulation. Nothing in this Regulation should be construed as an imposition of a general monitoring obligation or active fact-finding obligation, or as a general obligation for providers to take proactive measures to relation to illegal content.

(28)

Providers of intermediary services should not be subject to a monitoring obligation , neither de jure, nor de facto with respect to obligations of a general nature. This does not concern specific and properly identified monitoring obligations in a specific case , where set out in Union acts and, in particular, does not affect orders by national authorities in accordance with national legislation that implement Union legal acts , in accordance with the conditions established in this Regulation and other Union law considered as lex specialis . Nothing in this Regulation should be construed as an imposition of a general monitoring obligation or active fact-finding obligation, or as a general obligation for providers to take proactive measures to relation to illegal content. Equally, Member States should not prevent providers of intermediary services from providing end-to-end encrypted services. Applying effective end-to-end encryption to data is essential for trust in and security on the Internet, and effectively prevents unauthorised third party access. Furthermore, to ensure effective digital privacy, Member States should not impose a general obligation on providers of intermediary services to limit the anonymous use of their services. In accordance with the principle of data minimisation and in order to prevent unauthorised disclosure, identity theft and other forms of abuse of personal data, recipients should have the right to use and pay for services anonymously wherever reasonable efforts can make this possible. This should apply without prejudice to the obligations in Union law on the protection of personal data. Providers can enable anonymous use of their services by refraining from collecting personal data regarding the recipient and their online activities and by not preventing recipients from using anonymising networks for accessing the service. Anonymous payment can take place for example by paying in cash, by using cash-paid vouchers or prepaid payment instruments.

Amendment 26

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 29

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(29)

Depending on the legal system of each Member State and the field of law at issue, national judicial or administrative authorities may order providers of intermediary services to act against certain specific items of illegal content or to provide certain specific items of information. The national laws on the basis of which such orders are issued differ considerably and the orders are increasingly addressed in cross-border situations. In order to ensure that those orders can be complied with in an effective and efficient manner, so that the public authorities concerned can carry out their tasks and the providers are not subject to any disproportionate burdens, without unduly affecting the rights and legitimate interests of any third parties, it is necessary to set certain conditions that those orders should meet and certain complementary requirements relating to the processing of those orders.

(29)

Depending on the legal system of each Member State and the field of law at issue, national judicial or administrative authorities may order providers of intermediary services to act against certain specific items of illegal content or to provide certain specific items of information. The national laws in conformity with Union law, including the Charter on the basis of which such orders are issued differ considerably and the orders are increasingly addressed in cross-border situations. In order to ensure that those orders can be complied with in an effective and efficient manner, so that the public authorities concerned can carry out their tasks and the providers are not subject to any disproportionate burdens, without unduly affecting the rights and legitimate interests of any third parties, it is necessary to set certain conditions that those orders should meet and certain complementary requirements relating to the effective processing of those orders.

Amendment 27

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 30

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(30)

Orders to act against illegal content or to provide information should be issued in compliance with Union law, in particular Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and the prohibition of general obligations to monitor information or to actively seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity laid down in this Regulation. The conditions and requirements laid down in this Regulation which apply to orders to act against illegal content are without prejudice to other Union acts providing for similar systems for acting against specific types of illegal content, such as Regulation (EU) …/…. [proposed Regulation addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online], or Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 that confers specific powers to order the provision of information on Member State consumer law enforcement authorities, whilst the conditions and requirements that apply to orders to provide information are without prejudice to other Union acts providing for similar relevant rules for specific sectors. Those conditions and requirements should be without prejudice to retention and preservation rules under applicable national law, in conformity with Union law and confidentiality requests by law enforcement authorities related to the non-disclosure of information.

(30)

Orders to act against illegal content or to provide information should be issued in compliance with Union law, including the Charter and in particular Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and the prohibition of general obligations to monitor information or to actively seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity laid down in this Regulation. The conditions and requirements laid down in this Regulation which apply to orders to act against illegal content are without prejudice to other Union acts providing for similar systems for acting against specific types of illegal content, such as Regulation (EU) 2021/784 on addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online, or Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 that confers specific powers to order the provision of information on Member State consumer law enforcement authorities, whilst the conditions and requirements that apply to orders to provide information are without prejudice to other Union acts providing for similar relevant rules for specific sectors. Those conditions and requirements should be without prejudice to retention and preservation rules under applicable national law, in conformity with Union law and confidentiality requests by law enforcement authorities related to the non-disclosure of information.

Amendment 28

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 31

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(31)

The territorial scope of such orders to act against illegal content should be clearly set out on the basis of the applicable Union or national law enabling the issuance of the order and should not exceed what is strictly necessary to achieve its objectives. In that regard, the national judicial or administrative authority issuing the order should balance the objective that the order seeks to achieve, in accordance with the legal basis enabling its issuance, with the rights and legitimate interests of all third parties that may be affected by the order, in particular their fundamental rights under the Charter. In addition , where the order referring to the specific information may have effects beyond the territory of the Member State of the authority concerned, the authority should assess whether the information at issue is likely to constitute illegal content in other Member States concerned and, where relevant, take account of the relevant rules of Union law or international law and the interests of international comity.

(31)

The territorial scope of such orders to act against illegal content should be clearly set out on the basis of the applicable Union or national law in conformity with Union law, including Directive 2000/31/EC and the Charter, enabling the issuance of the order and should not exceed what is strictly necessary to achieve its objectives. In that regard, the national judicial or administrative authority issuing the order should balance the objective that the order seeks to achieve, in accordance with the legal basis enabling its issuance, with the rights and legitimate interests of all third parties that may be affected by the order, in particular their fundamental rights under the Charter. Exceptionally , where the order referring to the specific information may have effects beyond the territory of the Member State of the authority concerned, the authority should assess whether the information at issue is likely to constitute illegal content in other Member States concerned and, where relevant, take account of the relevant rules of Union law or international law and the interests of international comity.

Amendment 29

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 32

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(32)

The orders to provide information regulated by this Regulation concern the production of specific information about individual recipients of the intermediary service concerned who are identified in those orders for the purposes of determining compliance by the recipients of the services with applicable Union or national rules. Therefore, orders about information on a group of recipients of the service who are not specifically identified, including orders to provide aggregate information required for statistical purposes or evidence-based policy-making, should remain unaffected by the rules of this Regulation on the provision of information.

(32)

The orders to provide information regulated by this Regulation concern the production of specific information about individual recipients of the intermediary service concerned who are identified in those orders for the purposes of determining compliance by the recipients of the services with applicable Union or national rules. Therefore, orders about information on a group of recipients of the service who are not specifically identified, including orders to provide aggregate information required for statistical purposes or evidence-based policy-making, should remain unaffected by the rules of this Regulation on the provision of information. Member States should ensure full implementation of the Union legal framework on confidentiality of communications and online privacy, as well as on protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data enshrined in Directive (EU) 2016/680. In particular, Member States should respect the rights of individuals and journalists and refrain from seeking information which could harm media freedom or freedom of expression.

Amendment 30

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 33

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(33)

Orders to act against illegal content and to provide information are subject to the rules safeguarding the competence of the Member State where the service provider addressed is established and laying down possible derogations from that competence in certain cases, set out in Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC, only if the conditions of that Article are met. Given that the orders in question relate to specific items of illegal content and information, respectively, where they are addressed to providers of intermediary services established in another Member State, they do not in principle restrict those providers’ freedom to provide their services across borders. Therefore, the rules set out in Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC , including those regarding the need to justify measures derogating from the competence of the Member State where the service provider is established on certain specified grounds and regarding the notification of such measures, do not apply in respect of those orders .

(33)

Orders to act against illegal content and to provide information are subject to the rules safeguarding the competence of the Member State where the service provider addressed is established and laying down possible derogations from that competence in certain cases, set out in Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC, only if the conditions of that Article are met. Given that the orders in question relate to specific items of illegal content and information, as defined in Union or national law in compliance with Union law, respectively, where they are addressed to providers of intermediary services established in another Member State, they should not in principle restrict those providers’ freedom to provide their services across borders. The competent authority should transmit the orders to act against illegal content and to provide information directly to the relevant addressee by any electronic means capable of producing a written record under conditions that allow the service provider to establish authenticity, including the accuracy of the date and the time of sending and receipt of the order, such as by secured email and platforms or other secured channels , including those made available by the service provider, in line with the rules protecting personal data. This requirement should notably be met by the use of qualified electronic registered delivery services as provided for by Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council. This Regulation should be without prejudice to the rules on the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgements, namely as regards the right to refuse recognition and enforcement of an order to act against illegal content, in particular where such an order is contrary to the public policy in the Member State where recognition or enforcement is sought .

Amendment 31

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 33 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(33a)

This Regulation should not prevent the relevant national judicial or administrative authorities on the basis of the applicable Union or national law, in conformity with Union law, to issue an order to restore content, where such content has been in compliance with the terms and conditions of the intermediary service provider, but has been erroneously considered as illegal by the service provider and has been removed.

Amendment 32

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 33 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(33b)

To ensure the effective implementation of this Regulation, orders to act against illegal content and to provide information should comply with Union law, including with the Charter. The Commission should provide an effective response to breaches of Union law through infringement proceedings.

Amendment 33

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 34

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(34)

In order to achieve the objectives of this Regulation, and in particular to improve the functioning of the internal market and ensure a safe and transparent online environment, it is necessary to establish a clear and balanced set of harmonised due diligence obligations for providers of intermediary services. Those obligations should aim in particular to guarantee different public policy objectives such as the safety and trust of the recipients of the service, including minors and vulnerable users, protect the relevant fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter, to ensure meaningful accountability of those providers and to empower recipients and other affected parties, whilst facilitating the necessary oversight by competent authorities.

(34)

In order to achieve the objectives of this Regulation, and in particular to improve the functioning of the internal market and ensure a safe and transparent online environment, it is necessary to establish a clear , effective, predictable and balanced set of harmonised due diligence obligations for providers of intermediary services. Those obligations should aim in particular to guarantee different public policy objectives such as a high level of consumer protection, the safety and trust of the recipients of the service, including minors and vulnerable users, the protection of relevant fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter, the meaningful accountability of those providers and the empowerment of recipients and other affected parties, whilst facilitating the necessary oversight by competent authorities.

Amendment 34

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 35

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(35)

In that regard, it is important that the due diligence obligations are adapted to the type and nature of the intermediary service concerned. This Regulation therefore sets out basic obligations applicable to all providers of intermediary services, as well as additional obligations for providers of hosting services and, more specifically, online platforms and very large online platforms. To the extent that providers of intermediary services may fall within those different categories in view of the nature of their services and their size, they should comply with all of the corresponding obligations of this Regulation. Those harmonised due diligence obligations, which should be reasonable and non-arbitrary, are needed to achieve the identified public policy concerns, such as safeguarding the legitimate interests of the recipients of the service, addressing illegal practices and protecting fundamental rights online.

(35)

In that regard, it is important that the due diligence obligations are adapted to the type, nature and size of the intermediary service concerned. This Regulation therefore sets out basic obligations applicable to all providers of intermediary services, as well as additional obligations for providers of hosting services and, more specifically, online platforms and very large online platforms. To the extent that providers of intermediary services may fall within those different categories in view of the nature of their services and their size, they should comply with all of the corresponding obligations of this Regulation in relation to those services . Those harmonised due diligence obligations, which should be reasonable and non-arbitrary, are needed to achieve the identified public policy concerns, such as safeguarding the legitimate interests of the recipients of the service, addressing illegal practices and protecting fundamental rights online.

Amendment 35

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 36

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(36)

In order to facilitate smooth and efficient communications relating to matters covered by this Regulation, providers of intermediary services should be required to establish a single point of contact and to publish relevant information relating to their point of contact, including the languages to be used in such communications. The point of contact can also be used by trusted flaggers and by professional entities which are under a specific relationship with the provider of intermediary services. In contrast to the legal representative, the point of contact should serve operational purposes and should not necessarily have to have a physical location .

(36)

In order to facilitate smooth and efficient communications relating to matters covered by this Regulation, providers of intermediary services should be required to designate a single point of contact and to publish relevant and up to date information relating to their point of contact, including the languages to be used in such communications . Such information should be notified to the Digital Service Coordinator in the Member State of establishment . The point of contact can also be used by trusted flaggers and by professional entities which are under a specific relationship with the provider of intermediary services. It should be possible that this contact point is the same contact point as required under other Union acts. In contrast to the legal representative, the point of contact should serve operational purposes and should not necessarily have to have a physical location.

Amendment 36

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 36 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(36a)

Providers of intermediary services should also be required to designate a single point of contact for recipients of services, which allows rapid, direct and efficient communication in particular by easily accessible means such as telephone number, email addresses, electronic contact forms, chatbots or instant messaging. It should be explicitly indicated when a user communicates with chatbots. To facilitate rapid, direct and efficient communication, recipients of services should not be faced with lengthy phone menus or hidden contact information. In particular, phone menus should always include the option to speak to a human. Providers of intermediary services should allow recipients of services to choose means of direct and efficient communication which do not solely rely on automated tools. This requirement should not affect the internal organisation of providers of intermediary services, including the ability to use third-party services to provide this communication system, such as external service providers and call centres.

Amendment 37

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 37

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(37)

Providers of intermediary services that are established in a third country that offer services in the Union should designate a sufficiently mandated legal representative in the Union and provide information relating to their legal representatives, so as to allow for the effective oversight and, where necessary, enforcement of this Regulation in relation to those providers. It should be possible for the legal representative to also function as point of contact, provided the relevant requirements of this Regulation are complied with.

(37)

Providers of intermediary services that are established in a third country that offer services in the Union should designate a sufficiently mandated legal representative in the Union and provide information relating to their legal representatives, so as to allow for the effective oversight and, where necessary, enforcement of this Regulation in relation to those providers. It should be possible for the legal representative to also function as point of contact, provided the relevant requirements of this Regulation are complied with. It should be possible that a legal representative is mandated by more than one provider of intermediary services, in accordance with national law, provided that such providers qualify as micro, small or medium sized enterprises as defined in Recommendation 2003/361/EC.

Amendment 38

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 38

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(38)

Whilst the freedom of contract of providers of intermediary services should in principle be respected, it is appropriate to set certain rules on the content, application and enforcement of the terms and conditions of those providers in the interests of transparency, the protection of recipients of the service and the avoidance of unfair or arbitrary outcomes.

(38)

Whilst the freedom of contract of providers of intermediary services should in principle be respected, it is appropriate to set certain rules on the content, application and enforcement of the terms and conditions of those providers in the interests of protecting fundamental rights, in particular freedom of expression and of information, transparency, the protection of recipients of the service and the avoidance of discriminatory, unfair or arbitrary outcomes. In particular, it is important to ensure that terms and conditions are drafted in a clear and unambiguous language in line with applicable Union and national law. The terms and conditions should include information on any policies, procedures, measures and tools used for the purpose of content moderation, including algorithmic decision-making, human review, as well as on the right to terminate the use of the service. Providers of intermediary services should also provide recipients of services with a concise and easily readable summary of the main elements of the terms and conditions, including the remedies available, using, where appropriate graphical elements, such as icons.

Amendment 39

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 39

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(39)

To ensure an adequate level of transparency and accountability, providers of intermediary services should annually report, in accordance with the harmonised requirements contained in this Regulation, on the content moderation they engage in, including the measures taken as a result of the application and enforcement of their terms and conditions. However, so as to avoid disproportionate burdens, those transparency reporting obligations should not apply to providers that are micro- or small enterprises as defined in Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC (40) .

(39)

To ensure an adequate level of transparency and accountability, providers of intermediary services should draw up an annual report in a standardised and machine-readable format , in accordance with the harmonised requirements contained in this Regulation, on the content moderation they engage in, including the measures taken as a result of the application and enforcement of their terms and conditions. However, so as to avoid disproportionate burdens, those transparency reporting obligations should not apply to providers that are micro- or small enterprises as defined in Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC (40) which do not also qualify as very large online platforms.

Amendment 40

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 39 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(39a)

Recipients of a service should be able to make a free, autonomous and informed decisions or choices when using a service and providers of intermediary services shall not use any means, including via its interface, to distort or impair that decision-making. In particular, recipients of the service should be empowered to make such decision sinter alia regarding the acceptance of and changes to terms and conditions, advertising practices, privacy and other settings, recommender systems when interacting with intermediary services. However, certain practices typically exploit cognitive biases and prompt recipients of the service to purchase goods and services that they do not want or to reveal personal information they would prefer not to disclose. Therefore, providers of intermediary services should be prohibited from deceiving or nudging recipients of the service and from distorting or impairing the autonomy, decision-making, or choice of the recipients of the service via the structure, design or functionalities of an online interface or a part thereof (‘dark patterns’). This should include, but should not be limited to, exploitative design choices to direct the recipient to actions that benefit the provider of intermediary services, but which may not be in the recipients’ interests, presenting choices in a non-neutral manner, such as giving more visual prominence to a consent option, repetitively requesting or urging the recipient to make a decision such as making the procedure of cancelling a service significantly more cumbersome than signing up to it. However, rules preventing dark patterns should not be understood as preventing providers to interact directly with users and to offer new or additional services to them. In particular it should be possible to approach a user again in a reasonable time, even if the user had denied consent for specific data processing purposes, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679. The Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act to define practices that could be considered as dark patterns.

Amendment 512

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 39 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(39b)

To ensure an efficient and adequate application of the obligation on traceability of business users, without imposing any disproportionate burdens, the intermediary service providers covered should carry out due diligence checks prior to the use of their service to verify the reliability of the information provided by the business user concerned, in particular by using freely accessible official online databases or online interfaces, such as national trade registers or by requesting the business user concerned to provide trustworthy supporting documents, such as copies of identity documents, certified bank statements, company certificates and trade register certificates. They may also use other sources, available for use at a distance, which offer a similar degree of reliability for the purpose of complying with this obligation.

Amendment 41

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 40

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(40)

Providers of hosting services play a particularly important role in tackling illegal content online, as they store information provided by and at the request of the recipients of the service and typically give other recipients access thereto, sometimes on a large scale. It is important that all providers of hosting services, regardless of their size, put in place user-friendly notice and action mechanisms that facilitate the notification of specific items of information that the notifying party considers to be illegal content to the provider of hosting services concerned (‘notice’), pursuant to which that provider can decide whether or not it agrees with that assessment and wishes to remove or disable access to that content (‘action’). Provided the requirements on notices are met, it should be possible for individuals or entities to notify multiple specific items of allegedly illegal content through a single notice. The obligation to put in place notice and action mechanisms should apply, for instance, to file storage and sharing services, web hosting services, advertising servers and paste bins, in as far as they qualify as providers of hosting services covered by this Regulation.

(40)

Providers of hosting services play a particularly important role in tackling illegal content online, as they store information provided by and at the request of the recipients of the service and typically give other recipients access thereto, sometimes on a large scale. It is important that all providers of hosting services, regardless of their size, put in place easily accessible, comprehensive and user-friendly notice and action mechanisms that facilitate the notification of specific items of information that the notifying party considers to be illegal content to the provider of hosting services concerned (‘notice’), pursuant to which that provider can establish that the content in question is clearly illegal without additional legal or factual examination of the information indicated in the notice and remove or disable access to that content (‘action’) . Such mechanism should include a clearly identifiable reporting mechanism, located close to the content in question allowing to notify quickly and easily items of information considered to be illegal content under Union or national law . Provided the requirements on notices are met, it should be possible for individuals or entities to notify multiple specific items of allegedly illegal content through a single notice in order to ensure the effective operation of notice and action mechanisms. While individuals should always be able to submit notices anonymously, such notices should not give rise to actual knowledge, except in the case of information considered to involve one of the offences referred to in Directive 2011/93/EU . The obligation to put in place notice and action mechanisms should apply, for instance, to file storage and sharing services, web hosting services, advertising servers and paste bins, in as far as they qualify as providers of hosting services covered by this Regulation.

Amendment 42

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 40 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(40a)

Nevertheless, notices should be directed to the actor that has the technical and operational ability to act and the closest relationship to the recipient of the service that provided the information or content. Such hosting service providers should redirect such notices to the particular online platform and inform the Digital Services Coordinator.

Amendment 43

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 40 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(40b)

Moreover, hosting providers should seek to act only against the items of information notified. Where the removal or disabling of access to individual items of information is technically or operationally unachievable due to legal or technological reasons, such as encrypted file and data storage and sharing services, hosting providers should inform the recipient of the service of the notification and seek action.

Amendment 44

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 41

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(41)

The rules on such notice and action mechanisms should be harmonised at Union level, so as to provide for the timely, diligent and objective processing of notices on the basis of rules that are uniform, transparent and clear and that provide for robust safeguards to protect the right and legitimate interests of all affected parties, in particular their fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter, irrespective of the Member State in which those parties are established or reside and of the field of law at issue. The fundamental rights include, as the case may be, the right to freedom of expression and information, the right to respect for private and family life, the right to protection of personal data, the right to non-discrimination and the right to an effective remedy of the recipients of the service; the freedom to conduct a business, including the freedom of contract, of service providers; as well as the right to human dignity, the rights of the child, the right to protection of property, including intellectual property, and the right to non-discrimination of parties affected by illegal content.

(41)

The rules on such notice and action mechanisms should be harmonised at Union level, so as to provide for the timely, diligent, objective , non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory processing of notices on the basis of rules that are uniform, transparent and clear and that provide for robust safeguards to protect the right and legitimate interests of all affected parties, in particular their fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter, irrespective of the Member State in which those parties are established or reside and of the field of law at issue. The fundamental rights include, as the case may be, the right to freedom of expression and information, the right to respect for private and family life, the right to protection of personal data, the right to non-discrimination and the right to an effective remedy of the recipients of the service; the freedom to conduct a business, including the freedom of contract, of service providers; as well as the right to human dignity, the rights of the child, the right to protection of property, including intellectual property, and the right to non-discrimination of parties affected by illegal content.

Amendment 45

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 41 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(41a)

Providers of hosting services should act upon notices without undue delay, taking into account the type of illegal content that is being notified and the urgency of taking action. The provider of hosting services should inform the individual or entity notifying the specific content of its decision without undue delay after taking a decision whether to act upon the notice or not.

Amendment 46

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 42

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(42)

Where a hosting service provider decides to remove or disable information provided by a recipient of the service, for instance following receipt of a notice or acting on its own initiative, including through the use of automated means, that provider should inform the recipient of its decision, the reasons for its decision and the available redress possibilities to contest the decision, in view of the negative consequences that such decisions may have for the recipient, including as regards the exercise of its fundamental right to freedom of expression. That obligation should apply irrespective of the reasons for the decision, in particular whether the action has been taken because the information notified is considered to be illegal content or incompatible with the applicable terms and conditions. Available recourses to challenge the decision of the hosting service provider should always include judicial redress.

(42)

Where a hosting service provider decides to remove, disable access to, demote or impose other measures with regard to information provided by a recipient of the service, for instance following receipt of a notice or acting on its own initiative, including through the use of automated means, that have been proven to be efficient, proportionate and accurate, that provider should in a clear and user-friendly manner inform the recipient of its decision, the reasons for its decision and the available redress possibilities to contest the decision, in view of the negative consequences that such decisions may have for the recipient, including as regards the exercise of its fundamental right to freedom of expression. That obligation should apply irrespective of the reasons for the decision, in particular whether the action has been taken because the information notified is considered to be illegal content or incompatible with the applicable terms and conditions. Available recourses to challenge the decision of the hosting service provider should always include judicial redress. The obligation should however not apply in a number of situations, namely when the content is deceptive or part of high-volume of commercial content, or when it has been requested by a judicial or law enforcement authority to not inform the recipient due to an ongoing criminal investigation until the criminal investigation is closed. Where a provider of hosting service does not have the information necessary to inform the recipient by a durable medium, it should not be required to do so.

Amendment 47

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 42 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(42a)

A provider of hosting services may in some instances become aware, such as through a notice by a notifying party or through its own voluntary measures, of information relating to certain activity of a recipient of the service, such as the provision of certain types of illegal content, that reasonably justify, having regard to all relevant circumstances of which the online platform is aware, the suspicion that the recipient may have committed, may be committing or is likely to commit a serious criminal offence involving an imminent threat to the life or safety of person, such as offences specified in Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council  (1) . In such instances, the provider of hosting services should inform without delay the competent law enforcement authorities of such suspicion, providing, upon their request, all relevant information available to it, including where relevant the content in question and an explanation of its suspicion and unless instructed otherwise, should remove or disable the content. The information notified by the hosting service provider should not be used for any purpose other than those directly related to the individual serious criminal offence notified. This Regulation does not provide the legal basis for profiling of recipients of the services with a view to the possible identification of criminal offences by online platforms provider of hosting services. Providers of hosting services should also respect other applicable rules of Union or national law for the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals when informing law enforcement authorities. In order to facilitate the notification of suspicions of criminal offenses, Member States should notify to the Commission the list of the competent law enforcement or judicial authorities.

Amendment 48

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 43 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(43a)

Similarly, in order to ensure that the obligations are only applied to those providers of intermediary services where the benefit would outweigh the burden on the provider, the Commission should be empowered to issue a waiver to the requirements of Chapter III Section 3, in whole or in parts, to those providers of intermediary services that are non-for profit t, or are medium-sized enterprises, but do not present any systemic risk related to illegal content and have limited exposure to illegal content. The providers should present justified reasons for why they should be issued a waiver and send their application first to their Digital Services Coordinators of establishment for a preliminary assessment. The Commission should examine such an application taking into account a preliminary assessment carried out by the Digital Services Coordinators of establishment. The preliminary assessment should be sent together with the application to the Commission. The Commission should monitor the application of the waiver and have the right revoke a waiver at any time. The Commission should maintain a public list of all waiver issued and their conditions.

Amendment 49

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 44

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(44)

Recipients of the service should be able to easily and effectively contest certain decisions of online platforms that negatively affect them. Therefore, online platforms should be required to provide for internal complaint-handling systems, which meet certain conditions aimed at ensuring that the systems are easily accessible and lead to swift and fair outcomes. In addition, provision should be made for the possibility of out-of-court dispute settlement of disputes, including those that could not be resolved in satisfactory manner through the internal complaint-handling systems, by certified bodies that have the requisite independence, means and expertise to carry out their activities in a fair, swift and cost-effective manner. The possibilities to contest decisions of online platforms thus created should complement, yet leave unaffected in all respects, the possibility to seek judicial redress in accordance with the laws of the Member State concerned.

(44)

Recipients of the service, should be able to easily and effectively contest certain decisions, of online platforms that negatively affect them . This should include decisions of online platforms allowing consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders to suspend the provisions of their services to traders . Therefore, online platforms should be required to provide for internal complaint-handling systems, which meet certain conditions aimed at ensuring that the systems are easily accessible and lead to swift , non-discriminatory, non-arbitrary and fair outcomes within ten working days starting on the date on which the online platform received the complaint . In addition, provision should be made for the possibility of entering, in good faith, an out-of-court dispute settlement of disputes, including those that could not be resolved in satisfactory manner through the internal complaint-handling systems, by certified bodies that have the requisite independence, means and expertise to carry out their activities in a fair, swift and cost-effective manner and within a reasonable period of time . The possibilities to contest decisions of online platforms thus created should complement, yet leave unaffected in all respects, the possibility to seek judicial redress in accordance with the laws of the Member State concerned.

Amendment 50

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 46

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(46)

Action against illegal content can be taken more quickly and reliably where online platforms take the necessary measures to ensure that notices submitted by trusted flaggers through the notice and action mechanisms required by this Regulation are treated with priority, without prejudice to the requirement to process and decide upon all notices submitted under those mechanisms in a timely, diligent and objective manner. Such trusted flagger status should only be awarded to entities, and not individuals, that have demonstrated, among other things, that they have particular expertise and competence in tackling illegal content, that they represent collective interests and that they work in a diligent and objective manner. Such entities can be public in nature, such as, for terrorist content, internet referral units of national law enforcement authorities or of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (‘Europol’) or they can be non-governmental organisations and semi-public bodies, such as the organisations part of the INHOPE network of hotlines for reporting child sexual abuse material and organisations committed to notifying illegal racist and xenophobic expressions online. For intellectual property rights, organisations of industry and of right-holders could be awarded trusted flagger status, where they have demonstrated that they meet the applicable conditions. The rules of this Regulation on trusted flaggers should not be understood to prevent online platforms from giving similar treatment to notices submitted by entities or individuals that have not been awarded trusted flagger status under this Regulation, from otherwise cooperating with other entities, in accordance with the applicable law, including this Regulation and Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council (43).

(46)

Action against illegal content can be taken more quickly and reliably where online platforms take the necessary measures to ensure that notices submitted by trusted flaggers , acting within their designated area of expertise, through the notice and action mechanisms required by this Regulation are treated with priority, and expeditiously, taking into account due process and without prejudice to the requirement to process and decide upon all notices submitted under those mechanisms in an objective manner. Such trusted flagger status should only be awarded , for a period of two years, to entities, and not individuals, that have demonstrated, among other things, that they have particular expertise and competence in tackling illegal content, that they represent collective interests and that they work in a diligent and objective manner and have transparent funding structure. The Digital Services Coordinator should be allowed to renew the status where the trusted flagger concerned continues to meet the requirements of this Regulation . Such entities can be public in nature, such as, for terrorist content, internet referral units of national law enforcement authorities or of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (‘Europol’) or they can be non-governmental organisations , consumer organisations, and semi-public bodies, such as the organisations part of the INHOPE network of hotlines for reporting child sexual abuse material and organisations committed to notifying illegal racist and xenophobic expressions online. Trusted flaggers should publish easily comprehensible and detailed reports on notices submitted in accordance with Article 14. Those reports should indicate information such as notices categorised by the entity of the provider of hosting services, the type of content notified, the legal provisions allegedly breached by the content in question, and the action taken by the provider. The reports should also include information about any potential conflict of interest and sources of funding as well as the procedure put in place by the trusted flagger to retain its independence. For intellectual property rights, organisations of industry and of right-holders could be awarded trusted flagger status, where they have demonstrated that they meet the applicable conditions and respect for exceptions and limitations to intellectual property rights . The rules of this Regulation on trusted flaggers should not be understood to prevent online platforms from giving similar treatment to notices submitted by entities or individuals that have not been awarded trusted flagger status under this Regulation, from otherwise cooperating with other entities, in accordance with the applicable law, including this Regulation and Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council (43). In order to avoid abuses of the status of trusted flagger, it should be possible to suspend such status when a Digital Service Coordinator of establishment opened an investigation based on legitimate reasons. The suspension should not be longer than the time needed to conduct the investigation and should be maintained if the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment concluded that the entity in question could still be considered as a trusted flagger.

Amendment 51

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 46 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(46a)

The strict application of universal design to all new technologies and services should ensure full, equal and unrestricted access for all potential consumers, including persons with disabilities, in a way that takes full account of their inherent dignity and diversity. It is essential to ensure that providers of online platforms, which offer services in the Union, design and provide those services in accordance with the accessibility requirements, set out in Directive (EU) 2019/882. In particular, providers of online platforms should ensure that information provided, forms provided and procedures that are in place are made available in a manner that they are easy to find, easy to understand, and accessible to persons with disabilities.

Amendment 52

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 47

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(47)

The misuse of services of online platforms by frequently providing manifestly illegal content or by frequently submitting manifestly unfounded notices or complaints under the mechanisms and systems, respectively, established under this Regulation undermines trust and harms the rights and legitimate interests of the parties concerned. Therefore, there is a need to put in place appropriate and proportionate safeguards against such misuse. Information should be considered to be manifestly illegal content and notices or complaints should be considered manifestly unfounded where it is evident to a layperson, without any substantive analysis, that the content is illegal respectively that the notices or complaints are unfounded. Under certain conditions, online platforms should temporarily suspend their relevant activities in respect of the person engaged in abusive behaviour. This is without prejudice to the freedom by online platforms to determine their terms and conditions and establish stricter measures in the case of manifestly illegal content related to serious crimes. For reasons of transparency, this possibility should be set out, clearly and in sufficiently detail, in the terms and conditions of the online platforms. Redress should always be open to the decisions taken in this regard by online platforms and they should be subject to oversight by the competent Digital Services Coordinator. The rules of this Regulation on misuse should not prevent online platforms from taking other measures to address the provision of illegal content by recipients of their service or other misuse of their services, in accordance with the applicable Union and national law. Those rules are without prejudice to any possibility to hold the persons engaged in misuse liable, including for damages, provided for in Union or national law.

(47)

The misuse of services of online platforms by frequently providing illegal content or by frequently submitting manifestly unfounded notices or complaints under the mechanisms and systems, respectively, established under this Regulation undermines trust and harms the rights and legitimate interests of the parties concerned. Therefore, there is a need to put in place appropriate, proportionate and effective safeguards against such misuse. The misuse of services of online platforms could be established with regard to frequently provided illegal content where it is evident that that content is illegal without conducting a detailed legal or factual analysis. Notices or complaints should be considered manifestly unfounded where it is evident to a layperson, without any substantive analysis, that the content is illegal respectively that the notices or complaints are unfounded. Under certain conditions, online platforms should be entitled to temporarily or, in a limited number of situations, permanently suspend their relevant activities in respect of the person engaged in abusive behaviour. This is without prejudice to the freedom by online platforms to determine their terms and conditions and establish stricter measures in the case of illegal content related to serious crimes. For reasons of transparency, this possibility should be set out, clearly and in sufficiently detail, in the terms and conditions of the online platforms. Redress should always be open to the decisions taken in this regard by online platforms and they should be subject to oversight by the competent Digital Services Coordinator. The rules of this Regulation on misuse should not prevent online platforms from taking other measures to address the provision of illegal content by recipients of their service or other misuse of their services, in accordance with the applicable Union and national law. Those rules are without prejudice to any possibility to hold the persons engaged in misuse liable, including for damages, provided for in Union or national law.

Amendment 53

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 48

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(48)

An online platform may in some instances become aware, such as through a notice by a notifying party or through its own voluntary measures, of information relating to certain activity of a recipient of the service, such as the provision of certain types of illegal content, that reasonably justify, having regard to all relevant circumstances of which the online platform is aware, the suspicion that the recipient may have committed, may be committing or is likely to commit a serious criminal offence involving a threat to the life or safety of person, such as offences specified in Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. In such instances, the online platform should inform without delay the competent law enforcement authorities of such suspicion, providing all relevant information available to it, including where relevant the content in question and an explanation of its suspicion. This Regulation does not provide the legal basis for profiling of recipients of the services with a view to the possible identification of criminal offences by online platforms. Online platforms should also respect other applicable rules of Union or national law for the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals when informing law enforcement authorities  (1) .

deleted

Amendment 54

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 49

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(49)

In order to contribute to a safe, trustworthy and transparent online environment for consumers, as well as for other interested parties such as competing traders and holders of intellectual property rights, and to deter traders from selling products or services in violation of the applicable rules, online platforms allowing consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders should ensure that such traders are traceable. The trader should therefore be required to provide certain essential information to the online platform, including for purposes of promoting messages on or offering products. That requirement should also be applicable to traders that promote messages on products or services on behalf of brands, based on underlying agreements. Those online platforms should store all information in a secure manner for a reasonable period of time that does not exceed what is necessary, so that it can be accessed, in accordance with the applicable law, including on the protection of personal data, by public authorities and private parties with a legitimate interest, including through the orders to provide information referred to in this Regulation.

(49)

In order to contribute to a safe, trustworthy and transparent online environment for consumers, as well as for other interested parties such as competing traders and holders of intellectual property rights, and to deter traders from selling products or services in violation of the applicable rules, online platforms that allow consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders should obtain additional information on the trader and the products and services they intend to offer on the platform. The online platform should therefore be required to obtain information on the name, telephone number and electronic mail of the economic operator and the type of product or service the trader intends to offer on the online platform. Prior to offering its services to the trader, the online platform operator should make best efforts to assess if the information provided by the trader is reliable. In addition, the platform should take adequate measures, such as where applicable, random checks, to identify and prevent illegal content from appearing on their interface. The fulfilment of the obligations on traceability of the traders, products and services should facilitate the compliance by platforms allowing consumers to conclude distance contracts with the obligation to inform consumers of the identity of their contracting party established under Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, as well as the obligations established under Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 as regards the Member State in which consumers can pursue their consumer rights. The requirement to provide essential information should also be applicable to traders that promote messages on products or services on behalf of brands, based on underlying agreements. Those online platforms should store all information in a secure manner for a reasonable period of time that does not exceed what is necessary and no longer than six months after the end of a relationship with the trader , so that it can be accessed, in accordance with the applicable law, including on the protection of personal data, by public authorities and private parties with a  direct legitimate interest, including through the orders to provide information referred to in this Regulation.

Amendment 55

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 50

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(50)

To ensure an efficient and adequate application of that obligation, without imposing any disproportionate burdens, the online platforms covered should make reasonable efforts to verify the reliability of the information provided by the traders concerned, in particular by using freely available official online databases and online interfaces, such as national trade registers and the VAT Information Exchange System (45), or by requesting the traders concerned to provide trustworthy supporting documents, such as copies of identity documents, certified bank statements, company certificates and trade register certificates. They may also use other sources, available for use at a distance, which offer a similar degree of reliability for the purpose of complying with this obligation. However, the online platforms covered should not be required to engage in excessive or costly online fact-finding exercises or to carry out verifications on the spot. Nor should such online platforms, which have made the reasonable efforts required by this Regulation, be understood as guaranteeing the reliability of the information towards consumer or other interested parties. Such online platforms should also design and organise their online interface in a way that enables traders to comply with their obligations under Union law, in particular the requirements set out in Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (46), Article 7 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (47) and Article 3 of Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (48).

(50)

To ensure an efficient and adequate application of that obligation, without imposing any disproportionate burdens, the online platforms covered should , before allowing the display of the product or services on its online interface, make reasonable efforts to assess the reliability of the information provided by the traders concerned, in particular by using freely available official online databases and online interfaces, such as national trade registers and the VAT Information Exchange System (45), or by requesting the traders concerned to provide trustworthy supporting documents, such as copies of identity documents, certified bank statements, company certificates and trade register certificates. They may also use other sources, available for use at a distance, which offer a similar degree of reliability for the purpose of complying with this obligation. However, the online platforms covered should not be required to engage in excessive or costly online fact-finding exercises or to carry out verifications on the spot. Nor should such online platforms, which have made the best efforts required by this Regulation, be understood as guaranteeing the reliability of the information towards consumer or other interested parties. Such online platforms should also design and organise their online interface in a  user-friendly way that enables traders to comply with their obligations under Union law, in particular the requirements set out in Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (46), Article 7 of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (47) and Article 3 of Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (48).

Amendment 56

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 50 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(50a)

Online platforms that allow consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders should demonstrate their best efforts to prevent the dissemination by traders of illegal products and services, in compliance with the no general monitoring principle. Online platforms covered should inform recipients when the service or product they have acquired through their services are illegal.

Amendments 57 and 498

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 52

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(52)

Online advertisement plays an important role in the online environment, including in relation to the provision of the services of online platforms. However, online advertisement can contribute to significant risks, ranging from advertisement that is itself illegal content, to contributing to financial incentives for the publication or amplification of illegal or otherwise harmful content and activities online, or the discriminatory display of advertising with an impact on the equal treatment and opportunities of citizens. In addition to the requirements resulting from Article 6 of Directive 2000/31/EC, online platforms should therefore be required to ensure that the recipients of the service have certain individualised information necessary for them to understand when and on whose behalf the advertisement is displayed. In addition, recipients of the service should have information on the main parameters used for determining that specific advertising is to be displayed to them, providing meaningful explanations of the logic used to that end, including when this is based on profiling. The requirements of this Regulation on the provision of information relating to advertisement is without prejudice to the application of the relevant provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, in particular those regarding the right to object, automated individual decision-making, including profiling and specifically the need to obtain consent of the data subject prior to the processing of personal data for targeted advertising. Similarly, it is without prejudice to the provisions laid down in Directive 2002/58/EC in particular those regarding the storage of information in terminal equipment and the access to information stored therein.

(52)

Online advertisement plays an important role in the online environment, including in relation to the provision of the services of online platforms. However, online advertisement can contribute to significant risks, ranging from advertisement that is itself illegal content, to contributing to financial incentives for the publication or amplification of illegal or otherwise harmful content and activities online, or the discriminatory display of advertising with an impact on the equal treatment and opportunities of citizens. New advertising models have generated changes in the way information is presented and have created new personal data collection patterns and business models that might affect privacy, personal autonomy, democracy, quality news reporting and facilitate manipulation and discrimination. Therefore, more transparency in online advertising markets and independent research needs to be carried out to assess the effectiveness of behavioural advertisements. In addition to the requirements resulting from Article 6 of Directive 2000/31/EC, online platforms should therefore be required to ensure that the recipients of the service have certain individualised information necessary for them to understand when and on whose behalf the advertisement is displayed , as well as the natural or legal person who finances the advertisement . In addition, recipients of the service should have easy access to information on the main parameters used for determining that specific advertising is to be displayed to them, providing meaningful explanations of the logic used to that end, including when this is based on profiling. The requirements of this Regulation on the provision of information relating to advertisement is without prejudice to the application of the relevant provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, in particular those regarding the right to object, automated individual decision-making, including profiling and specifically the need to obtain consent of the data subject prior to the processing of personal data for targeted advertising. Similarly, it is without prejudice to the provisions laid down in Directive 2002/58/EC in particular those regarding the storage of information in terminal equipment and the access to information stored therein. In addition to these information obligations, online platforms should ensure that recipients of the service can refuse or withdraw their consent for targeted advertising purposes, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 in a way that is not more difficult nor time-consuming than to give their consent. Online platforms should also not use personal data for commercial purposes related to direct marketing, profiling and behaviourally targeted advertising of minors. The online platform should not be obliged to maintain, acquire or process additional information in order to assess the age of the recipient of the service. Refusing consent in processing personal data for the purposes of advertising should not result in access to the functionalities of the platform being disabled. Alternative access options should be fair and reasonable both for regular and for one-time users, such as options based on tracking-free advertising. Targeting individuals on the basis of special categories of data which allow for targeting vulnerable groups should not be permitted.

Amendment 58

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 52 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(52a)

A core part of an online platform’s business is the manner in which information is prioritised and presented on its online interface to facilitate and optimise access to information for the recipients of the service. This is done, for example, by algorithmically suggesting, ranking and prioritising information, distinguishing through text or other visual representations, or otherwise curating information provided by recipients. Such recommender systems can have a significant impact on the ability of recipients to retrieve and interact with information online. They also play an important role in the amplification of certain messages, the viral dissemination of information and the stimulation of online behaviour. Consequently, online platforms should ensure that recipients can understand how recommender system impact the way information is displayed, and can influence how information is presented to them. They should clearly present the parameters for such recommender systems in an easily comprehensible manner to ensure that the recipients understand how information is prioritised for them.

Amendment 59

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 53

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(53)

Given the importance of very large online platforms, due to their reach, in particular as expressed in number of recipients of the service, in facilitating public debate, economic transactions and the dissemination of information, opinions and ideas and in influencing how recipients obtain and communicate information online, it is necessary to impose specific obligations on those platforms, in addition to the obligations applicable to all online platforms. Those additional obligations on very large online platforms are necessary to address those public policy concerns, there being no alternative and less restrictive measures that would effectively achieve the same result.

(53)

Given the importance of very large online platforms, due to their reach, in particular as expressed in number of recipients of the service, in facilitating public debate, economic transactions and the dissemination of information, opinions and ideas and in influencing how recipients obtain and communicate information online, it is necessary to impose specific obligations on those platforms, in addition to the obligations applicable to all online platforms. Those additional obligations on very large online platforms are necessary to address those public policy concerns, there being no proportionate alternative and less restrictive measures that would effectively achieve the same result.

Amendment 60

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 54

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(54)

Very large online platforms may cause societal risks, different in scope and impact from those caused by smaller platforms. Once the number of recipients of a platform reaches a significant share of the Union population, the systemic risks the platform poses have a disproportionately negative impact in the Union. Such significant reach should be considered to exist where the number of recipients exceeds an operational threshold set at 45 million, that is, a number equivalent to 10 % of the Union population. The operational threshold should be kept up to date through amendments enacted by delegated acts, where necessary. Such very large online platforms should therefore bear the highest standard of due diligence obligations, proportionate to their societal impact and means.

(54)

Very large online platforms may cause societal risks, different in scope and impact from those caused by smaller platforms. Once the number of recipients of a platform reaches a significant share of the Union population, the systemic risks the platform poses have a disproportionately negative impact in the Union. Such significant reach should be considered to exist where the number of recipients exceeds an operational threshold set at 45 million, that is, a number equivalent to 10 % of the Union population. The operational threshold should be kept up to date through amendments enacted by delegated acts, where necessary. Such very large online platforms should therefore bear the highest standard of due diligence obligations, proportionate to their societal impact and means. Accordingly, the number of average monthly recipients of the service should reflect the recipients actually reached by the service either by being exposed to content or by providing content disseminated on the platforms’ interface in that period of time.

Amendment 61

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 56

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(56)

Very large online platforms are used in a way that strongly influences safety online, the shaping of public opinion and discourse, as well as on online trade. The way they design their services is generally optimised to benefit their often advertising-driven business models and can cause societal concerns. In the absence of effective regulation and enforcement, they can set the rules of the game, without effectively identifying and mitigating the risks and the societal and economic harm they can cause. Under this Regulation, very large online platforms should therefore assess the systemic risks stemming from the functioning and use of their service, as well as by potential misuses by the recipients of the service, and take appropriate mitigating measures.

(56)

Very large online platforms are used in a way that strongly influences safety online, the shaping of public opinion and discourse, as well as on online trade. The way they design their services is generally optimised to benefit their often advertising-driven business models and can cause societal concerns. In the absence of effective regulation and enforcement, they can set the rules of the game, without effectively identifying and mitigating the risks and the societal and economic harm they can cause. Under this Regulation, very large online platforms should therefore assess the systemic risks stemming from the functioning and use of their service, as well as by potential misuses by the recipients of the service, and take appropriate mitigating measures where mitigation is possible without adversely impacting fundamental rights .

Amendment 62

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 57

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(57)

Three categories of systemic risks should be assessed in-depth. A first category concerns the risks associated with the misuse of their service through the dissemination of illegal content, such as the dissemination of child sexual abuse material or illegal hate speech, and the conduct of illegal activities, such as the sale of products or services prohibited by Union or national law, including counterfeit products. For example, and without prejudice to the personal responsibility of the recipient of the service of very large online platforms for possible illegality of his or her activity under the applicable law, such dissemination or activities may constitute a significant systematic risk where access to such content may be amplified through accounts with a particularly wide reach. A second category concerns the impact of the service on the exercise of fundamental rights, as protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, including the freedom of expression and information, the right to private life, the right to non-discrimination and the rights of the child. Such risks may arise, for example, in relation to the design of the algorithmic systems used by the very large online platform or the misuse of their service through the submission of abusive notices or other methods for silencing speech or hampering competition. A third category of risks concerns the intentional and, oftentimes, coordinated manipulation of the platform’s service, with a foreseeable impact on health, civic discourse, electoral processes, public security and protection of minors, having regard to the need to safeguard public order, protect privacy and fight fraudulent and deceptive commercial practices. Such risks may arise, for example, through the creation of fake accounts, the use of bots, and other automated or partially automated behaviours, which may lead to the rapid and widespread dissemination of information that is illegal content or incompatible with an online platform’s terms and conditions.

(57)

Four categories of systemic risks should be assessed in-depth. A first category concerns the risks associated with the misuse of their service through the dissemination and amplification of illegal content, such as the dissemination of child sexual abuse material or illegal hate speech, and the conduct of illegal activities, such as the sale of products or services prohibited by Union or national law, including dangerous and counterfeit products and illegally-traded animals . For example, and without prejudice to the personal responsibility of the recipient of the service of very large online platforms for possible illegality of his or her activity under the applicable law, such dissemination or activities may constitute a significant systematic risk where access to such content may be amplified through accounts with a particularly wide reach. A second category concerns the actual and foreseeable impact of the service on the exercise of fundamental rights, as protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, including the freedom of expression and information, freedom of the press, human dignity, the right to private life , the right to gender equality , the right to non-discrimination and the rights of the child. Such risks may arise, for example, in relation to the design of the algorithmic systems used by the very large online platform or the misuse of their service through the submission of abusive notices or other methods for silencing speech or hampering competition. A third category of risks concerns the intentional and, oftentimes, coordinated manipulation of the platform’s service, with a foreseeable impact on civic discourse, electoral processes, public security and protection of minors, having regard to the need to safeguard public order, protect privacy and fight fraudulent and deceptive commercial practices. Such risks may arise, for example, through the creation of fake accounts, the use of bots, and other automated or partially automated behaviours, which may lead to the rapid and widespread dissemination of information that is illegal content or incompatible with an online platform’s terms and conditions. A fourth category of risks concerns any actual and foreseeable negative effects on the protection of public health, including behavioural addictions due to excessive use of a service or other serious negative effects to the person's physical, mental, social and financial well-being.

Amendment 63

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 58

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(58)

Very large online platforms should deploy the necessary means to diligently mitigate the systemic risks identified in the risk assessment. Very large online platforms should under such mitigating measures consider, for example, enhancing or otherwise adapting the design and functioning of their content moderation, algorithmic recommender systems and online interfaces, so that they discourage and limit the dissemination of illegal content, adapting their decision-making processes, or adapting their terms and conditions. They may also include corrective measures, such as discontinuing advertising revenue for specific content, or other actions, such as improving the visibility of authoritative information sources. Very large online platforms may reinforce their internal processes or supervision of any of their activities, in particular as regards the detection of systemic risks. They may also initiate or increase cooperation with trusted flaggers, organise training sessions and exchanges with trusted flagger organisations, and cooperate with other service providers, including by initiating or joining existing codes of conduct or other self-regulatory measures. Any measures adopted should respect the due diligence requirements of this Regulation and be effective and appropriate for mitigating the specific risks identified, in the interest of safeguarding public order, protecting privacy and fighting fraudulent and deceptive commercial practices, and should be proportionate in light of the very large online platform’s economic capacity and the need to avoid unnecessary restrictions on the use of their service, taking due account of potential negative effects on the fundamental rights of the recipients of the service.

(58)

Very large online platforms should deploy the necessary means to diligently mitigate the systemic risks identified in the risk assessment where mitigation is possible without adversely impacting fundamental rights . Very large online platforms should under such mitigating measures consider, for example, enhancing or otherwise adapting the design and functioning of their content moderation, algorithmic recommender systems and online interfaces, so that they discourage and limit the dissemination of illegal content and of content that is incompatible with their terms and conditions. They should also consider mitigation measures in case of malfunctioning or intentional manipulation and exploitation of the service , or in case of risks inherent to the intended operation of the service, including the amplification of illegal content, of content that is in breach with their terms and conditions or any other content having negative effects, by adapting their decision-making processes, or adapting their terms and conditions and content moderation policies and how those policies are enforced, while being fully transparent to the recipients of the service . They may also include corrective measures, such as discontinuing advertising revenue for specific content, or other actions, such as improving the visibility of authoritative information sources. Very large online platforms may reinforce their internal processes or supervision of any of their activities, in particular as regards the detection of systemic risks. They may also initiate or increase cooperation with trusted flaggers, organise training sessions and exchanges with trusted flagger organisations, and cooperate with other service providers, including by initiating or joining existing codes of conduct or other self-regulatory measures. The decision as to the choice of measures should remain with the very large online platform. Any measures adopted should respect the due diligence requirements of this Regulation and be effective and appropriate for mitigating the specific risks identified, in the interest of safeguarding public order, protecting privacy and fighting fraudulent and deceptive commercial practices, and should be proportionate in light of the very large online platform’s economic capacity and the need to avoid unnecessary restrictions on the use of their service, taking due account of potential negative effects on the fundamental rights of the recipients of the service. The Commission should evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the mitigating measures and issue recommendations when the measures implemented are deemed inappropriate or ineffective to address the systemic risk at stake.

Amendment 64

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 59

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(59)

Very large online platforms should, where appropriate, conduct their risk assessments and design their risk mitigation measures with the involvement of representatives of the recipients of the service, representatives of groups potentially impacted by their services, independent experts and civil society organisations.

(59)

Very large online platforms should, where appropriate, conduct their risk assessments and design their risk mitigation measures with the involvement of representatives of the recipients of the service, independent experts and civil society organisations.

Amendment 65

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 60

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(60)

Given the need to ensure verification by independent experts, very large online platforms should be accountable, through independent auditing, for their compliance with the obligations laid down by this Regulation and, where relevant, any complementary commitments undertaking pursuant to codes of conduct and crises protocols. They should give the auditor access to all relevant data necessary to perform the audit properly. Auditors should also be able to make use of other sources of objective information, including studies by vetted researchers. Auditors should guarantee the confidentiality, security and integrity of the information, such as trade secrets, that they obtain when performing their tasks and have the necessary expertise in the area of risk management and technical competence to audit algorithms. Auditors should be independent, so as to be able to perform their tasks in an adequate and trustworthy manner. If their independence is not beyond doubt, they should resign or abstain from the audit engagement.

(60)

Given the need to ensure verification by independent experts, very large online platforms should be accountable, through external independent auditing, for their compliance with the obligations laid down by this Regulation . In particular, audits should assess the clarity, coherence and predictable enforcement of terms of service, the completeness, methodology and consistency of the transparency reporting obligations, the accuracy, predictability and clarity of the provider's follow-up for recipients of the service and notice providers regarding notices of illegal content and terms of service violations, the accuracy of classification of removed information, the internal complaint handling mechanism, the interaction with trusted flaggers and assessment of their accuracy, the diligence with regard to the verification of the traceability of traders, the adequateness and correctness of the risk assessment, the adequateness and effectiveness of the risk mitigation measures taken and, where relevant, any complementary commitments undertaken pursuant to codes of conduct and crises protocols. They should give the vetted auditor access to all relevant data necessary to perform the audit properly. Auditors should also be able to make use of other sources of objective information, including studies by vetted researchers. Vetted auditors should guarantee the confidentiality, security and integrity of the information, such as trade secrets, that they obtain when performing their tasks and have the necessary expertise in the area of risk management and technical competence to audit algorithms. This guarantee should not be a means to circumvent the applicability of audit obligations in this Regulation applicable to very large online platforms. Auditors should be legally and financially independent and should not have conflict of interest involving the very large online platform concerned and other very large online platforms , so as to be able to perform their tasks in an adequate and trustworthy manner . Additionally, vetted auditors and their employees should not have provided any service to the very large online platform audited for 12 months before the audit. They should also commit not to work for the very large online platform audited or a professional organisation or business association of which the platform is a member for 12 months after their position in the auditing organisation has ended . If their independence is not beyond doubt, they should resign or abstain from the audit engagement.

Amendment 66

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 61

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(61)

The audit report should be substantiated, so as to give a meaningful account of the activities undertaken and the conclusions reached. It should help inform, and where appropriate suggest improvements to the measures taken by the very large online platform to comply with their obligations under this Regulation. The report should be transmitted to the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment and the Board without delay, together with the risk assessment and the mitigation measures, as well as the platform’s plans for addressing the audit’s recommendations. The report should include an audit opinion based on the conclusions drawn from the audit evidence obtained. A positive opinion should be given where all evidence shows that the very large online platform complies with the obligations laid down by this Regulation or, where applicable, any commitments it has undertaken pursuant to a code of conduct or crisis protocol, in particular by identifying, evaluating and mitigating the systemic risks posed by its system and services. A positive opinion should be accompanied by comments where the auditor wishes to include remarks that do not have a substantial effect on the outcome of the audit. A negative opinion should be given where the auditor considers that the very large online platform does not comply with this Regulation or the commitments undertaken.

(61)

The audit report should be substantiated, so as to give a meaningful account of the activities undertaken and the conclusions reached. It should help inform, and where appropriate suggest improvements to the measures taken by the very large online platform to comply with their obligations under this Regulation. The report should be transmitted to the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment and the Board without delay, together with the risk assessment and the mitigation measures, as well as the platform’s plans for addressing the audit’s recommendations . Where applicable, the report should include a description of specific elements that could not be audited, and an explanation of why these could not be audited . The report should include an audit opinion based on the conclusions drawn from the audit evidence obtained. A positive opinion should be given where all evidence shows that the very large online platform complies with the obligations laid down by this Regulation or, where applicable, any commitments it has undertaken pursuant to a code of conduct or crisis protocol, in particular by identifying, evaluating and mitigating the systemic risks posed by its system and services. A positive opinion should be accompanied by comments where the auditor wishes to include remarks that do not have a substantial effect on the outcome of the audit. A negative opinion should be given where the auditor considers that the very large online platform does not comply with this Regulation or the commitments undertaken. Where the audit opinion could not reach a conclusion for specific elements that fall within the scope of the audit, a statement of reasons for the failure to reach such a conclusion should be included in the audit opinion.

Amendment 67

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 62

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(62)

A core part of a very large online platform’s business is the manner in which information is prioritised and presented on its online interface to facilitate and optimise access to information for the recipients of the service. This is done, for example, by algorithmically suggesting, ranking and prioritising information, distinguishing through text or other visual representations, or otherwise curating information provided by recipients. Such recommender systems can have a significant impact on the ability of recipients to retrieve and interact with information online. They also play an important role in the amplification of certain messages, the viral dissemination of information and the stimulation of online behaviour. Consequently, very large online platforms should ensure that recipients are appropriately informed, and can influence the information presented to them. They should clearly present the main parameters for such recommender systems in an easily comprehensible manner to ensure that the recipients understand how information is prioritised for them . They should also ensure that the recipients enjoy alternative options for the main parameters, including options that are not based on profiling of the recipient .

(62)

A core part of a very large online platform’s business is the manner in which information is prioritised and presented on its online interface to facilitate and optimise access to information for the recipients of the service. This is done, for example, by algorithmically suggesting, ranking and prioritising information, distinguishing through text or other visual representations, or otherwise curating information provided by recipients. Such recommender systems can have a significant impact on the ability of recipients to retrieve and interact with information online. Often, they facilitate the search for relevant content for recipients of the service and contribute to an improved user experience. They also play an important role in the amplification of certain messages, the viral dissemination of information and the stimulation of online behaviour. Consequently, very large online platforms should let the recipients decide whether they want to be subject to recommender systems based on profiling and ensure that there is an option which is not based on profiling. In addition, online platforms should ensure that recipients are appropriately informed, on the use of recommender systems, and that recipients can influence the information presented to them through making active choices . They should clearly present the main parameters for such recommender systems in an easily comprehensible and user-friendly manner to ensure that the recipients understand how information is prioritised for them , the reason why, and how to modify the parameters used to curate the content presented for the recipients . Very large online platforms should implement appropriate technical and organisational measures for ensuring that recommender systems are designed in a consumer friendly manner and do not influence end users’ behaviour through dark patterns .

Amendment 68

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 63

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(63)

Advertising systems used by very large online platforms pose particular risks and require further public and regulatory supervision on account of their scale and ability to target and reach recipients of the service based on their behaviour within and outside that platform’s online interface. Very large online platforms should ensure public access to repositories of advertisements displayed on their online interfaces to facilitate supervision and research into emerging risks brought about by the distribution of advertising online, for example in relation to illegal advertisements or manipulative techniques and disinformation with a real and foreseeable negative impact on public health, public security, civil discourse, political participation and equality. Repositories should include the content of advertisements and related data on the advertiser and the delivery of the advertisement, in particular where targeted advertising is concerned.

(63)

Advertising systems used by very large online platforms pose particular risks and require further public and regulatory supervision on account of their scale and ability to target and reach recipients of the service based on their behaviour within and outside that platform’s online interface. Very large online platforms should ensure public access to repositories of advertisements displayed on their online interfaces to facilitate supervision and research into emerging risks brought about by the distribution of advertising online, for example in relation to illegal advertisements or manipulative techniques and disinformation with a real and foreseeable negative impact on public health, public security, civil discourse, political participation and equality. Repositories should include the content of advertisements , including the name of the product, service or brand and the object of the advertisement, and related data on the advertiser , and, if different, the natural or legal person who paid for the advertisement, and the delivery of the advertisement, in particular where targeted advertising is concerned. In addition, very large online platforms should label any known deep fake videos, audio or other files.

Amendment 69

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 64

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(64)

In order to appropriately supervise the compliance of very large online platforms with the obligations laid down by this Regulation, the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment or the Commission may require access to or reporting of specific data. Such a requirement may include, for example, the data necessary to assess the risks and possible harms brought about by the platform’s systems, data on the accuracy, functioning and testing of algorithmic systems for content moderation, recommender systems or advertising systems, or data on processes and outputs of content moderation or of internal complaint-handling systems within the meaning of this Regulation. Investigations by researchers on the evolution and severity of online systemic risks are particularly important for bridging information asymmetries and establishing a resilient system of risk mitigation, informing online platforms, Digital Services Coordinators, other competent authorities, the Commission and the public. This Regulation therefore provides a framework for compelling access to data from very large online platforms to vetted researchers. All requirements for access to data under that framework should be proportionate and appropriately protect the rights and legitimate interests, including trade secrets and other confidential information, of the platform and any other parties concerned, including the recipients of the service.

(64)

In order to appropriately supervise the compliance of very large online platforms with the obligations laid down by this Regulation, the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment or the Commission may require access to or reporting of specific data and algorithms . Such a requirement may include, for example, the data necessary to assess the risks and possible harms brought about by the platform’s systems, data on the accuracy, functioning and testing of algorithmic systems for content moderation, recommender systems or advertising systems, or data on processes and outputs of content moderation or of internal complaint-handling systems within the meaning of this Regulation. Investigations by vetted researchers , vetted not-for-profit bodies, organisations or associations, on the evolution and severity of online systemic risks are particularly important for bridging information asymmetries and establishing a resilient system of risk mitigation, informing online platforms, Digital Services Coordinators, other competent authorities, the Commission and the public. This Regulation therefore provides a framework for compelling access to data from very large online platforms to vetted researchers , not-for-profit bodies, organisations or associations, . All requirements for access to data under that framework should be proportionate and appropriately protect the rights and legitimate interests, including personal data, trade secrets and other confidential information, of the platform and any other parties concerned, including the recipients of the service. Vetted researchers, not-for-profit bodies, organisations or associations should guarantee the confidentiality, security and integrity of the information, such as trade secrets, that they obtain when performing their tasks.

Amendment 70

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 66

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(66)

To facilitate the effective and consistent application of the obligations in this Regulation that may require implementation through technological means, it is important to promote voluntary industry standards covering certain technical procedures, where the industry can help develop standardised means to comply with this Regulation, such as allowing the submission of notices, including through application programming interfaces, or about the interoperability of advertisement repositories. Such standards could in particular be useful for relatively small providers of intermediary services. The standards could distinguish between different types of illegal content or different types of intermediary services, as appropriate.

(66)

To facilitate the effective and consistent application of the obligations in this Regulation that may require implementation through technological means, it is important to promote voluntary standards covering certain technical procedures, where the industry can help develop standardised means to comply with this Regulation, such as allowing the submission of notices, including through application programming interfaces, about the interoperability of advertisement repositories , or about terms and conditions . Such standards could in particular be useful for relatively small providers of intermediary services. The standards could distinguish between different types of illegal content or different types of intermediary services, as appropriate. In the absence of relevant standards agreed within [24 months after the entry into force of this Regulation], the Commission should be able to establish technical specifications by implementing acts until a voluntary standard is agreed.

Amendment 71

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 67

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(67)

The Commission and the Board should encourage the drawing-up of codes of conduct to contribute to the application of this Regulation. While the implementation of codes of conduct should be measurable and subject to public oversight, this should not impair the voluntary nature of such codes and the freedom of interested parties to decide whether to participate. In certain circumstances, it is important that very large online platforms cooperate in the drawing-up and adhere to specific codes of conduct. Nothing in this Regulation prevents other service providers from adhering to the same standards of due diligence, adopting best practices and benefitting from the guidance provided by the Commission and the Board, by participating in the same codes of conduct.

(67)

The Commission and the Board should encourage the drawing-up of codes of conduct as well as the compliance with the provisions of these codes to contribute to the application of this Regulation . The Commission and the Board should aim that the codes of conduct clearly define the nature of the public interest objectives being addressed, that they contain mechanisms for independent evaluation of the achievement of these objectives and that the role of competent authorities is clearly defined . While the implementation of codes of conduct should be measurable and subject to public oversight, this should not impair the voluntary nature of such codes and the freedom of interested parties to decide whether to participate. In certain circumstances, it is important that very large online platforms cooperate in the drawing-up and adhere to specific codes of conduct. Nothing in this Regulation prevents other service providers from adhering to the same standards of due diligence, adopting best practices and benefitting from the guidance provided by the Commission and the Board, by participating in the same codes of conduct.

Amendment 72

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 68

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(68)

It is appropriate that this Regulation identify certain areas of consideration for such codes of conduct. In particular, risk mitigation measures concerning specific types of illegal content should be explored via self- and co-regulatory agreements. Another area for consideration is the possible negative impacts of systemic risks on society and democracy, such as disinformation or manipulative and abusive activities. This includes coordinated operations aimed at amplifying information, including disinformation, such as the use of bots or fake accounts for the creation of fake or misleading information, sometimes with a purpose of obtaining economic gain, which are particularly harmful for vulnerable recipients of the service, such as children. In relation to such areas, adherence to and compliance with a given code of conduct by a very large online platform may be considered as an appropriate risk mitigating measure. The refusal without proper explanations by an online platform of the Commission’s invitation to participate in the application of such a code of conduct could be taken into account, where relevant, when determining whether the online platform has infringed the obligations laid down by this Regulation.

(68)

It is appropriate that this Regulation identify certain areas of consideration for such codes of conduct. In particular, risk mitigation measures concerning specific types of illegal content should be explored via self- and co-regulatory agreements. Another area for consideration is the possible negative impacts of systemic risks on society and democracy, such as disinformation, or manipulative and abusive activities. This includes coordinated operations aimed at amplifying information, including disinformation, such as the use of bots or fake accounts for the creation of intentionally inaccurate or misleading information, sometimes with a purpose of obtaining economic gain, which are particularly harmful for vulnerable recipients of the service, such as children. In relation to such areas, adherence to and compliance with a given code of conduct by a very large online platform may be considered as an appropriate risk mitigating measure.

Amendment 73

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 69

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(69)

The rules on codes of conduct under this Regulation could serve as a basis for already established self-regulatory efforts at Union level, including the Product Safety Pledge, the Memorandum of Understanding against counterfeit goods, the Code of Conduct against illegal hate speech as well as the Code of practice on disinformation. In particular for the latter, the Commission will issue guidance for strengthening the Code of practice on disinformation as announced in the European Democracy Action Plan .

(69)

The rules on codes of conduct under this Regulation could serve as a basis for already established self-regulatory efforts at Union level, including the Product Safety Pledge, the Memorandum of Understanding against counterfeit goods, the Code of Conduct against illegal hate speech as well as the Code of practice on disinformation. The Commission should also encourage the development of codes of conduct to facilitate compliance with obligations in areas, such as protection of minors or short-term rental. Other areas for consideration could be to promote diversity of information through support of high quality journalism and to foster credibility of information, whilst respecting confidentiality of journalistic sources. Moreover, it is important to ensure consistency with already existing enforcement mechanisms, such as those in the area of electronic communications or media and with independent regulatory structures in these fields as defined by Union and national law .

Amendment 74

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 70

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(70)

The provision of online advertising generally involves several actors, including intermediary services that connect publishers of advertising with advertisers. Codes of conducts should support and complement the transparency obligations relating to advertisement for online platforms and very large online platforms set out in this Regulation in order to provide for flexible and effective mechanisms to facilitate and enhance the compliance with those obligations, notably as concerns the modalities of the transmission of the relevant information. The involvement of a wide range of stakeholders should ensure that those codes of conduct are widely supported, technically sound, effective and offer the highest levels of user-friendliness to ensure that the transparency obligations achieve their objectives.

(70)

The provision of online advertising generally involves several actors, including intermediary services that connect publishers of advertising with advertisers. Codes of conducts should support and complement the transparency obligations relating to advertisement for online platforms and very large online platforms set out in this Regulation in order to provide for flexible and effective mechanisms to facilitate and enhance the compliance with those obligations, notably as concerns the modalities of the transmission of the relevant information. The involvement of a wide range of stakeholders should ensure that those codes of conduct are widely supported, technically sound, effective and offer the highest levels of user-friendliness to ensure that the transparency obligations achieve their objectives. The effectiveness of the codes of conduct should be regularly assessed. Unlike legislation, codes of conduct are not subject to democratic scrutiny and their compliance with fundamental rights is not subject to judicial review. In order to enhance accountability, participation and transparency, procedural safeguards for drawing up codes of conduct are needed. Before initiating or facilitating the drawing-up or the revision of codes of conduct, the Commission may invite where appropriate, the Fundamental Rights Agency or the European Data Protection Supervisor to express their opinion.

Amendment 75

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 71

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(71)

In case of extraordinary circumstances affecting public security or public health, the Commission may initiate the drawing up of crisis protocols to coordinate a rapid, collective and cross-border response in the online environment. Extraordinary circumstances may entail any unforeseeable event, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, pandemics and other serious cross-border threats to public health, war and acts of terrorism, where, for example, online platforms may be misused for the rapid spread of illegal content or disinformation or where the need arises for rapid dissemination of reliable information. In light of the important role of very large online platforms in disseminating information in our societies and across borders, such platforms should be encouraged in drawing up and applying specific crisis protocols. Such crisis protocols should be activated only for a limited period of time and the measures adopted should also be limited to what is strictly necessary to address the extraordinary circumstance. Those measures should be consistent with this Regulation, and should not amount to a general obligation for the participating very large online platforms to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal content.

(71)

In case of extraordinary circumstances affecting public security or public health, the Commission may initiate the drawing up of voluntary crisis protocols to coordinate a rapid, collective and cross-border response in the online environment. Extraordinary circumstances may entail any unforeseeable event, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, pandemics and other serious cross-border threats to public health, war and acts of terrorism, where, for example, online platforms may be misused for the rapid spread of illegal content or disinformation or where the need arises for rapid dissemination of reliable information. In light of the important role of very large online platforms in disseminating information in our societies and across borders, such platforms should be encouraged in drawing up and applying specific crisis protocols. Such crisis protocols should be activated only for a limited period of time and the measures adopted should also be limited to what is strictly necessary to address the extraordinary circumstance. Those measures should be consistent with this Regulation, and should not amount to a general obligation for the participating very large online platforms to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal content.

Amendment 76

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 72

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(72)

The task of ensuring adequate oversight and enforcement of the obligations laid down in this Regulation should in principle be attributed to the Member States. To this end, they should appoint at least one authority with the task to apply and enforce this Regulation. Member States should however be able to entrust more than one competent authority, with specific supervisory or enforcement tasks and competences concerning the application of this Regulation, for example for specific sectors, such as electronic communications’ regulators, media regulators or consumer protection authorities, reflecting their domestic constitutional, organisational and administrative structure.

(72)

The task of ensuring adequate oversight and enforcement of the obligations laid down in this Regulation should in principle be attributed to the Member States. To this end, they should designate at least one authority with the task to apply and enforce this Regulation. Member States should however be able to entrust more than one competent authority, with specific supervisory or enforcement tasks and competences concerning the application of this Regulation, for example for specific sectors, such as electronic communications’ regulators, media regulators or consumer protection authorities, reflecting their domestic constitutional, organisational and administrative structure.

Amendment 77

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 73

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(73)

Given the cross-border nature of the services at stake and the horizontal range of obligations introduced by this Regulation, the authority appointed with the task of supervising the application and, where necessary, enforcing this Regulation should be identified as a Digital Services Coordinator in each Member State. Where more than one competent authority is appointed to apply and enforce this Regulation, only one authority in that Member State should be identified as a Digital Services Coordinator. The Digital Services Coordinator should act as the single contact point with regard to all matters related to the application of this Regulation for the Commission, the Board, the Digital Services Coordinators of other Member States, as well as for other competent authorities of the Member State in question. In particular, where several competent authorities are entrusted with tasks under this Regulation in a given Member State, the Digital Services Coordinator should coordinate and cooperate with those authorities in accordance with the national law setting their respective tasks, and should ensure effective involvement of all relevant authorities in the supervision and enforcement at Union level.

(73)

Given the cross-border nature of the services at stake and the horizontal range of obligations introduced by this Regulation, the authority appointed with the task of supervising the application and, where necessary, enforcing this Regulation should be identified as a Digital Services Coordinator in each Member State. Where more than one competent authority is appointed to apply and enforce this Regulation, only one authority in that Member State should be designated as a Digital Services Coordinator. The Digital Services Coordinator should act as the single contact point with regard to all matters related to the application of this Regulation for the Commission, the Board, the Digital Services Coordinators of other Member States, as well as for other competent authorities of the Member State in question. In particular, where several competent authorities are entrusted with tasks under this Regulation in a given Member State, the Digital Services Coordinator should coordinate and cooperate with those authorities in accordance with the national law setting their respective tasks, and should ensure effective involvement of all relevant authorities in the supervision and enforcement at Union level.

Amendment 78

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 74

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(74)

The Digital Services Coordinator, as well as other competent authorities designated under this Regulation, play a crucial role in ensuring the effectiveness of the rights and obligations laid down in this Regulation and the achievement of its objectives. Accordingly, it is necessary to ensure that those authorities act in complete independence from private and public bodies, without the obligation or possibility to seek or receive instructions, including from the government, and without prejudice to the specific duties to cooperate with other competent authorities, the Digital Services Coordinators, the Board and the Commission. On the other hand, the independence of these authorities should not mean that they cannot be subject, in accordance with national constitutions and without endangering the achievement of the objectives of this Regulation, to national control or monitoring mechanisms regarding their financial expenditure or to judicial review, or that they should not have the possibility to consult other national authorities, including law enforcement authorities or crisis management authorities, where appropriate.

(74)

The Digital Services Coordinator, as well as other competent authorities designated under this Regulation, play a crucial role in ensuring the effectiveness of the rights and obligations laid down in this Regulation and the achievement of its objectives. Accordingly, it is necessary to ensure that those authorities have the necessary financial and human resources to carry out their tasks under this Regulation. It is also necessary to ensure that those authorities act in complete independence from private and public bodies, without the obligation or possibility to seek or receive instructions, including from the government, and without prejudice to the specific duties to cooperate with other competent authorities, the Digital Services Coordinators, the Board and the Commission. On the other hand, the independence of these authorities should not mean that they cannot be subject, in accordance with national constitutions and without endangering the achievement of the objectives of this Regulation, to national control or monitoring mechanisms regarding their financial expenditure or to judicial review, or that they should not have the possibility to consult other national authorities, including law enforcement authorities or crisis management authorities, where appropriate.

Amendment 79

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 75

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(75)

Member States can designate an existing national authority with the function of the Digital Services Coordinator, or with specific tasks to apply and enforce this Regulation, provided that any such appointed authority complies with the requirements laid down in this Regulation, such as in relation to its independence. Moreover, Member States are in principle not precluded from merging functions within an existing authority, in accordance with Union law. The measures to that effect may include, inter alia, the preclusion to dismiss the President or a board member of a collegiate body of an existing authority before the expiry of their terms of office, on the sole ground that an institutional reform has taken place involving the merger of different functions within one authority, in the absence of any rules guaranteeing that such dismissals do not jeopardise the independence and impartiality of such members.

(75)

Member States can designate an existing national authority with the function of the Digital Services Coordinator, or with specific tasks to supervise the application and enforce this Regulation, provided that any such appointed authority complies with the requirements laid down in this Regulation, such as in relation to its independence. Moreover, Member States are in principle not precluded from merging functions within an existing authority, in accordance with Union law. The measures to that effect may include, inter alia, the preclusion to dismiss the President or a board member of a collegiate body of an existing authority before the expiry of their terms of office, on the sole ground that an institutional reform has taken place involving the merger of different functions within one authority, in the absence of any rules guaranteeing that such dismissals do not jeopardise the independence and impartiality of such members.

Amendment 80

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 76

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(76)

In the absence of a general requirement for providers of intermediary services to ensure a physical presence within the territory of one of the Member States, there is a need to ensure clarity under which Member State's jurisdiction those providers fall for the purposes of enforcing the rules laid down in Chapters III and IV by the national competent authorities. A provider should be under the jurisdiction of the Member State where its main establishment is located, that is, where the provider has its head office or registered office within which the principal financial functions and operational control are exercised. In respect of providers that do not have an establishment in the Union but that offer services in the Union and therefore fall within the scope of this Regulation, the Member State where those providers appointed their legal representative should have jurisdiction, considering the function of legal representatives under this Regulation. In the interest of the effective application of this Regulation, all Member States should, however, have jurisdiction in respect of providers that failed to designate a legal representative, provided that the principle of ne bis in idem is respected. To that aim, each Member State that exercises jurisdiction in respect of such providers should, without undue delay, inform all other Member States of the measures they have taken in the exercise of that jurisdiction.

(76)

In the absence of a general requirement for providers of intermediary services to ensure a physical presence within the territory of one of the Member States, there is a need to ensure clarity under which Member State's jurisdiction those providers fall for the purposes of enforcing the rules laid down in this Regulation by the national competent authorities. A provider should be under the jurisdiction of the Member State where its main establishment is located, that is, where the provider has its head office or registered office within which the principal financial functions and operational control are exercised. In respect of providers that do not have an establishment in the Union but that offer services in the Union and therefore fall within the scope of this Regulation, the Member State where those providers appointed their legal representative should have jurisdiction, considering the function of legal representatives under this Regulation. In the interest of the effective application of this Regulation, all Member States should, however, have jurisdiction in respect of providers that failed to designate a legal representative, provided that the principle of ne bis in idem is respected. To that aim, each Member State that exercises jurisdiction in respect of such providers should, without undue delay, inform all other Member States of the measures they have taken in the exercise of that jurisdiction.

Amendment 81

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 77

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(77)

Member States should provide the Digital Services Coordinator, and any other competent authority designated under this Regulation, with sufficient powers and means to ensure effective investigation and enforcement. Digital Services Coordinators should in particular be able to search for and obtain information which is located in its territory, including in the context of joint investigations, with due regard to the fact that oversight and enforcement measures concerning a provider under the jurisdiction of another Member State should be adopted by the Digital Services Coordinator of that other Member State, where relevant in accordance with the procedures relating to cross-border cooperation.

(77)

Member States should provide the Digital Services Coordinator, and any other competent authority designated under this Regulation, with sufficient powers and means to ensure effective investigation and enforcement. Digital Services Coordinators should in particular be able to adopt proportionate interim measures in case of risk of serious harm, as well as to search for and obtain information which is located in its territory, including in the context of joint investigations, with due regard to the fact that oversight and enforcement measures concerning a provider under the jurisdiction of another Member State should be adopted by the Digital Services Coordinator of that other Member State, where relevant in accordance with the procedures relating to cross-border cooperation.

Amendment 82

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 78

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(78)

Member States should set out in their national law, in accordance with Union law and in particular this Regulation and the Charter, the detailed conditions and limits for the exercise of the investigatory and enforcement powers of their Digital Services Coordinators, and other competent authorities where relevant, under this Regulation.

(78)

Member States should set out in their national law, in accordance with Union law and in particular this Regulation and the Charter, the detailed conditions and limits for the exercise of the investigatory and enforcement powers of their Digital Services Coordinators, and other competent authorities where relevant, under this Regulation. In order to ensure consistent and uniform application of this Regulation, the Commission should adopt guidance on the rules and procedures related to the powers of Digital Services Coordinators.

Amendment 83

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 79

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(79)

In the course of the exercise of those powers, the competent authorities should comply with the applicable national rules regarding procedures and matters such as the need for a prior judicial authorisation to enter certain premises and legal professional privilege. Those provisions should in particular ensure respect for the fundamental rights to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, including the rights of defence, and, the right to respect for private life. In this regard, the guarantees provided for in relation to the proceedings of the Commission pursuant to this Regulation could serve as an appropriate point of reference. A prior, fair and impartial procedure should be guaranteed before taking any final decision, including the right to be heard of the persons concerned, and the right to have access to the file, while respecting confidentiality and professional and business secrecy, as well as the obligation to give meaningful reasons for the decisions. This should not preclude the taking of measures, however, in duly substantiated cases of urgency and subject to appropriate conditions and procedural arrangements. The exercise of powers should also be proportionate to, inter alia the nature and the overall actual or potential harm caused by the infringement or suspected infringement. The competent authorities should in principle take all relevant facts and circumstances of the case into account, including information gathered by competent authorities in other Member States.

(79)

In the course of the exercise of those powers, the competent authorities should comply with the applicable national rules regarding procedures and matters such as the need for a prior judicial authorisation to enter certain premises and legal professional privilege. Those provisions should in particular ensure respect for the fundamental rights to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, including the rights of defence, and, the right to respect for private life. In this regard, the guarantees provided for in relation to the proceedings of the Commission pursuant to this Regulation could serve as an appropriate point of reference. A prior, fair and impartial procedure should be guaranteed before taking any final decision, including the right to be heard of the persons concerned, and the right to have access to the file, while respecting confidentiality and professional and business secrecy, as well as the obligation to give meaningful reasons for the decisions. This should not preclude the taking of measures, however, in duly substantiated cases of urgency and subject to appropriate conditions and procedural arrangements. The exercise of powers should also be proportionate to, inter alia the nature and the overall actual or potential harm caused by the infringement or suspected infringement. The competent authorities should take all relevant facts and circumstances of the case into account, including information gathered by competent authorities in other Member States.

Amendment 84

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 80

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(80)

Member States should ensure that violations of the obligations laid down in this Regulation can be sanctioned in a manner that is effective, proportionate and dissuasive, taking into account the nature, gravity, recurrence and duration of the violation, in view of the public interest pursued, the scope and kind of activities carried out, as well as the economic capacity of the infringer. In particular, penalties should take into account whether the provider of intermediary services concerned systematically or recurrently fails to comply with its obligations stemming from this Regulation, as well as, where relevant, whether the provider is active in several Member States.

(80)

Member States should ensure that violations of the obligations laid down in this Regulation can be sanctioned in a manner that is effective, proportionate and dissuasive, taking into account the nature, gravity, recurrence and duration of the violation, in view of the public interest pursued, the scope and kind of activities carried out, as well as the economic capacity of the infringer. In particular, penalties should take into account whether the provider of intermediary services concerned systematically or recurrently fails to comply with its obligations stemming from this Regulation, as well as, where relevant, the number of recipients affected, the intentional or negligent character of the infringement and whether the provider is active in several Member States. The Commission should issue guidance to Member States concerning the criteria and conditions to impose proportionate penalties .

Amendment 85

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 81

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(81)

In order to ensure effective enforcement of this Regulation, individuals or representative organisations should be able to lodge any complaint related to compliance with this Regulation with the Digital Services Coordinator in the territory where they received the service, without prejudice to this Regulation’s rules on jurisdiction. Complaints should provide a faithful overview of concerns related to a particular intermediary service provider’s compliance and could also inform the Digital Services Coordinator of any more cross-cutting issues. The Digital Services Coordinator should involve other national competent authorities as well as the Digital Services Coordinator of another Member State, and in particular the one of the Member State where the provider of intermediary services concerned is established, if the issue requires cross-border cooperation.

(81)

In order to ensure effective enforcement of the obligations, laid down in this Regulation, individuals or representative organisations should be able to lodge any complaint related to compliance with this Regulation with the Digital Services Coordinator in the territory where they received the service, without prejudice to this Regulation’s rules on jurisdiction. Complaints should provide a faithful overview of concerns related to a particular intermediary service provider’s compliance and could also inform the Digital Services Coordinator of any more cross-cutting issues. The Digital Services Coordinator should involve other national competent authorities as well as the Digital Services Coordinator of another Member State, and in particular the one of the Member State where the provider of intermediary services concerned is established, if the issue requires cross-border cooperation. The Digital Services Coordinator of establishment should assess the complaint in a timely manner and inform the Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State where the recipient resides or is established, on how the complaint has been handled.

Amendment 86

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 82

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(82)

Member States should ensure that Digital Services Coordinators can take measures that are effective in addressing and proportionate to certain particularly serious and persistent infringements. Especially where those measures can affect the rights and interests of third parties, as may be the case in particular where the access to online interfaces is restricted, it is appropriate to require that the measures be ordered by a competent judicial authority at the Digital Service Coordinators’ request and are subject to additional safeguards. In particular, third parties potentially affected should be afforded the opportunity to be heard and such orders should only be issued when powers to take such measures as provided by other acts of Union law or by national law, for instance to protect collective interests of consumers, to ensure the prompt removal of web pages containing or disseminating child pornography, or to disable access to services are being used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right, are not reasonably available.

(82)

Member States should ensure that Digital Services Coordinators can take measures that are effective in addressing and proportionate to certain particularly serious and persistent infringements of this Regulation . Especially where those measures can affect the rights and interests of third parties, as may be the case in particular where the access to online interfaces is restricted, it is appropriate to require that the measures be ordered by a competent judicial authority at the Digital Service Coordinators’ request and are subject to additional safeguards. In particular, third parties potentially affected should be afforded the opportunity to be heard and such orders should only be issued when powers to take such measures as provided by other acts of Union law or by national law, for instance to protect collective interests of consumers, to ensure the prompt removal of web pages containing or disseminating child pornography, or to disable access to services are being used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right, are not reasonably available.

Amendment 87

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 83 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(83a)

Without prejudice to the provisions on the exemption from liability, provided for in this Regulation as regards the information transmitted or stored at the request of a recipient of the service, providers of intermediary services should be liable for the infringement of their obligations laid down in this Regulation. Recipients of the service and organisations representing them should be entitled to have access to proportionate and effective remedies. They should in particular have the right to seek, in accordance with national or Union law, compensation from those providers of intermediary services against any direct damage or loss suffered due to an infringement by providers of intermediary services of obligations established under this Regulation.

Amendment 88

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 84

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(84)

The Digital Services Coordinator should regularly publish a report on the activities carried out under this Regulation. Given that the Digital Services Coordinator is also made aware of orders to take action against illegal content or to provide information regulated by this Regulation through the common information sharing system, the Digital Services Coordinator should include in its annual report the number and categories of these orders addressed to providers of intermediary services issued by judicial and administrative authorities in its Member State.

(84)

The Digital Services Coordinator should regularly publish a report in a standardised and machine-readable format on the activities carried out under this Regulation. Given that the Digital Services Coordinator is also made aware of orders to take action against illegal content or to provide information regulated by this Regulation through the common information sharing system, based on the Internal Market Information system, the Digital Services Coordinator should include in its annual report the number and categories of these orders addressed to providers of intermediary services issued by judicial and administrative authorities in its Member State.

Amendment 89

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 86

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(86)

In order to facilitate cross-border supervision and investigations involving several Member States, the Digital Services Coordinators should be able to participate, on a permanent or temporary basis, in joint oversight and investigation activities concerning matters covered by this Regulation. Those activities may include other competent authorities and may cover a variety of issues, ranging from coordinated data gathering exercises to requests for information or inspections of premises, within the limits and scope of powers available to each participating authority. The Board may be requested to provide advice in relation to those activities, for example by proposing roadmaps and timelines for activities or proposing ad-hoc task-forces with participation of the authorities involved.

(86)

In order to facilitate cross-border supervision and investigations involving several Member States, the Digital Services Coordinators should be able to participate, on a permanent or temporary basis, in joint oversight and investigation activities concerning matters covered by this Regulation on the basis of an agreement between the Member States concerned, and in the absence of agreement, under the authority of the Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State of establishment . Those activities may include other competent authorities and may cover a variety of issues, ranging from coordinated data gathering exercises to requests for information or inspections of premises, within the limits and scope of powers available to each participating authority. The Board may be requested to provide advice in relation to those activities, for example by proposing roadmaps and timelines for activities or proposing ad-hoc task-forces with participation of the authorities involved.

Amendment 90

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 88

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(88)

In order to ensure a consistent application of this Regulation, it is necessary to set up an independent advisory group at Union level, which should support the Commission and help coordinate the actions of Digital Services Coordinators. That European Board for Digital Services should consist of the Digital Services Coordinators, without prejudice to the possibility for Digital Services Coordinators to invite in its meetings or appoint ad hoc delegates from other competent authorities entrusted with specific tasks under this Regulation, where that is required pursuant to their national allocation of tasks and competences. In case of multiple participants from one Member State, the voting right should remain limited to one representative per Member State.

(88)

In order to ensure a consistent application of this Regulation, it is necessary to set up an independent advisory group at Union level, which should support the Commission and help coordinate the actions of Digital Services Coordinators. That European Board for Digital Services should consist of the Digital Services Coordinators, without prejudice to the possibility for Digital Services Coordinators to invite in its meetings or appoint ad hoc delegates from other competent authorities entrusted with specific tasks under this Regulation, where that is required pursuant to their national allocation of tasks and competences. In case of multiple participants from one Member State, the voting right should remain limited to one representative per Member State. The rules of procedure of the Board should ensure respecting the confidentiality of the information.

Amendment 91

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 90

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(90)

For that purpose, the Board should be able to adopt opinions, requests and recommendations addressed to Digital Services Coordinators or other competent national authorities. While not legally binding, the decision to deviate therefrom should be properly explained and could be taken into account by the Commission in assessing the compliance of the Member State concerned with this Regulation.

(90)

For that purpose, the Board should be able to adopt opinions, requests and recommendations addressed to Digital Services Coordinators or other competent national authorities. While not legally binding, the decision to deviate therefrom should be properly explained and could be taken into account by the Commission in assessing the compliance of the Member State concerned with this Regulation. The Board should draw up an annual report regarding its activities.

Amendment 92

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 91

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(91)

The Board should bring together the representatives of the Digital Services Coordinators and possible other competent authorities under the chairmanship of the Commission, with a view to ensuring an assessment of matters submitted to it in a fully European dimension. In view of possible cross-cutting elements that may be of relevance for other regulatory frameworks at Union level, the Board should be allowed to cooperate with other Union bodies, offices, agencies and advisory groups with responsibilities in fields such as equality, including equality between women and men, and non-discrimination, data protection, electronic communications, audiovisual services, detection and investigation of frauds against the EU budget as regards custom duties, or consumer protection, as necessary for the performance of its tasks.

(91)

The Board should bring together the representatives of the Digital Services Coordinators and possible other competent authorities under the chairmanship of the Commission, with a view to ensuring an assessment of matters submitted to it in a fully European dimension. In view of possible cross-cutting elements that may be of relevance for other regulatory frameworks at Union level, the Board should be allowed to cooperate with other Union bodies, offices, agencies and advisory groups with responsibilities in fields such as equality, including equality between women and men, and non-discrimination, gender equality and non-discrimination, eradication of all forms of violence against women and girls and other forms of gender-based violence, data protection , respect for intellectual property, competition , electronic communications, audiovisual services, market surveillance, detection and investigation of frauds against the EU budget as regards custom duties, or consumer protection, as necessary for the performance of its tasks.

Amendment 93

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 96

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(96)

Where the infringement of the provision that solely applies to very large online platforms is not effectively addressed by that platform pursuant to the action plan, only the Commission may , on its own initiative or upon advice of the Board, decide to further investigate the infringement concerned and the measures that the platform has subsequently taken, to the exclusion of the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment. After having conducted the necessary investigations, the Commission should be able to issue decisions finding an infringement and imposing sanctions in respect of very large online platforms where that is justified. It should also have such a possibility to intervene in cross-border situations where the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment did not take any measures despite the Commission’s request, or in situations where the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment itself requested for the Commission to intervene, in respect of an infringement of any other provision of this Regulation committed by a very large online platform.

(96)

Where the infringement of the provision that solely applies to very large online platforms is not effectively addressed by that platform pursuant to the action plan, only the Commission should , on its own initiative or upon advice of the Board, initiate further investigation on the infringement concerned and the measures that the platform has subsequently taken, to the exclusion of the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment. After having conducted the necessary investigations, the Commission should be able to issue decisions finding an infringement and imposing sanctions in respect of very large online platforms where that is justified. It should also intervene in cross-border situations where the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment did not take any measures despite the Commission’s request, or in situations where the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment itself requested for the Commission to intervene, in respect of an infringement of any other provision of this Regulation committed by a very large online platform. The Commission should initiate proceedings in view of the possible adoption of decisions in respect of the relevant conduct by the very large online platform for example where that platform is suspected of having infringed this Regulation including where the platform has been found to not implement the operational recommendations from the independent audit that has been endorsed by Digital Services Coordinator of establishment and where the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment did not take any investigatory or enforcement measures.

Amendment 94

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 97

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(97)

The Commission should remain free to decide whether or not it wishes to intervene in any of the situations where it is empowered to do so under this Regulation. Once the Commission initiated the proceedings, the Digital Services Coordinators of establishment concerned should be precluded from exercising their investigatory and enforcement powers in respect of the relevant conduct of the very large online platform concerned, so as to avoid duplication, inconsistencies and risks from the viewpoint of the principle of ne bis in idem. However, in the interest of effectiveness, those Digital Services Coordinators should not be precluded from exercising their powers either to assist the Commission, at its request in the performance of its supervisory tasks, or in respect of other conduct, including conduct by the same very large online platform that is suspected to constitute a new infringement. Those Digital Services Coordinators, as well as the Board and other Digital Services Coordinators where relevant, should provide the Commission with all necessary information and assistance to allow it to perform its tasks effectively, whilst conversely the Commission should keep them informed on the exercise of its powers as appropriate. In that regard, the Commission should, where appropriate, take account of any relevant assessments carried out by the Board or by the Digital Services Coordinators concerned and of any relevant evidence and information gathered by them, without prejudice to the Commission’s powers and responsibility to carry out additional investigations as necessary.

(97)

Once the Commission initiated the proceedings, the Digital Services Coordinators of establishment concerned should be precluded from exercising their investigatory and enforcement powers in respect of the relevant conduct of the very large online platform concerned, so as to avoid duplication, inconsistencies and risks from the viewpoint of the principle of ne bis in idem. However, in the interest of effectiveness, those Digital Services Coordinators should not be precluded from exercising their powers either to assist the Commission, at its request in the performance of its supervisory tasks, or in respect of other conduct, including conduct by the same very large online platform that is suspected to constitute a new infringement. Those Digital Services Coordinators, as well as the Board and other Digital Services Coordinators where relevant, should provide the Commission with all necessary information and assistance to allow it to perform its tasks effectively, whilst conversely the Commission should keep them informed on the exercise of its powers as appropriate. In that regard, the Commission should, where appropriate, take account of any relevant assessments carried out by the Board or by the Digital Services Coordinators concerned and of any relevant evidence and information gathered by them, without prejudice to the Commission’s powers and responsibility to carry out additional investigations as necessary.

Amendment 95

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 97 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(97a)

The Commission should ensure that it is independent and impartial in its decision making in regards to both Digital Services Coordinators and providers of services under this Regulation.

Amendment 96

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 99

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(99)

In particular, the Commission should have access to any relevant documents, data and information necessary to open and conduct investigations and to monitor the compliance with the relevant obligations laid down in this Regulation, irrespective of who possesses the documents, data or information in question, and regardless of their form or format, their storage medium, or the precise place where they are stored. The Commission should be able to directly require that the very large online platform concerned or relevant third parties, or than individuals, provide any relevant evidence, data and information. In addition, the Commission should be able to request any relevant information from any public authority, body or agency within the Member State, or from any natural person or legal person for the purpose of this Regulation. The Commission should be empowered to require access to, and explanations relating to, data-bases and algorithms of relevant persons, and to interview, with their consent, any persons who may be in possession of useful information and to record the statements made. The Commission should also be empowered to undertake such inspections as are necessary to enforce the relevant provisions of this Regulation. Those investigatory powers aim to complement the Commission’s possibility to ask Digital Services Coordinators and other Member States’ authorities for assistance, for instance by providing information or in the exercise of those powers

(99)

In particular, the Commission, should have access to any relevant documents, data and information necessary to open and conduct investigations and to monitor the compliance with the relevant obligations laid down in this Regulation, irrespective of who possesses the documents, data or information in question, and regardless of their form or format, their storage medium, or the precise place where they are stored. The Commission should be able to directly require that the very large online platform concerned or relevant third parties, or that individuals, provide any relevant evidence, data and information. In addition, the Commission should be able to request any relevant information from any public authority, body or agency within the Member State, or from any natural person or legal person for the purpose of this Regulation. The Commission should be empowered to require access to, and explanations relating to, data-bases and algorithms of relevant persons, and to interview, with their consent, any persons who may be in possession of useful information and to record the statements made. The Commission should also be empowered to undertake such inspections as are necessary to enforce the relevant provisions of this Regulation. Those investigatory powers aim to complement the Commission’s possibility to ask Digital Services Coordinators and other Member States’ authorities for assistance, for instance by providing information or in the exercise of those powers.

Amendment 97

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 100

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(100)

Compliance with the relevant obligations imposed under this Regulation should be enforceable by means of fines and periodic penalty payments. To that end, appropriate levels of fines and periodic penalty payments should also be laid down for non-compliance with the obligations and breach of the procedural rules, subject to appropriate limitation periods.

(100)

Compliance with the relevant obligations imposed under this Regulation should be enforceable by means of fines and periodic penalty payments. To that end, appropriate levels of fines and periodic penalty payments should also be laid down for non-compliance with the obligations and breach of the procedural rules, subject to appropriate limitation periods. The Commission should in particular ensure that the penalties are effective, proportionate and dissuasive, taking into account the nature, gravity, recurrence and duration of the violation, in view of the public interest pursued, the scope and nature of activities carried out, the number of recipients affected, the intentional or negligent character of the infringement as well as the economic capacity of the infringer.

Amendment 98

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 102

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(102)

In the interest of effectiveness and efficiency, in addition to the general evaluation of the Regulation, to be performed within five years of entry into force, after the initial start-up phase and on the basis of the first three years of application of this Regulation, the Commission should also perform an evaluation of the activities of the Board and on its structure.

(102)

The Commission should carry out a general evaluation of this Regulation and report to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. This report should address in particular the definition of very large online platforms and the number of average monthly active recipients of the service. This report should also address the implementation of codes of conduct, as well as the obligation to designate a representative, established in the Union and assess the effect of similar obligations imposed by third countries on European service providers operating abroad. In particular, the Commissions should assess any impact of the costs to European service providers of any similar requirements, including to designate a legal representative, introduced by third countries and any new barriers to non-Union market access after the adoption of this Regulation. The Commission should also assess the impact on the ability of European businesses and consumers to access and buy products and services from outside the Union. In the interest of effectiveness and efficiency, in addition to the general evaluation of the Regulation, to be performed within three years of entry into force, after the initial start-up phase and on the basis of the first three years of application of this Regulation, the Commission should also perform an evaluation of the activities of the Board and on its structure.

Amendment 99

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 — title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Subject matter and scope

Subject matter

Amendment 100

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 — paragraph 1 — point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c)

rules on the implementation and enforcement of this Regulation, including as regards the cooperation of and coordination between the competent authorities.

(c)

rules on the implementation and enforcement of the requirements set out in this Regulation, including as regards the cooperation of and coordination between the competent authorities.

Amendment 101

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 — paragraph 2 — point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b)

set out uniform rules for a safe, predictable and trusted online environment, where fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter are effectively protected.

(b)

set out harmonised rules for a safe , accessible , predictable and trusted online environment, where fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter are effectively protected

Amendment 102

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 — paragraph 2 — point b a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ba)

promote a high level of consumer protection and contribute to increased consumer choice while facilitating innovation, support digital transition and encourage economic growth within the internal market.

Amendment 103

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 — paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.     This Regulation shall apply to intermediary services provided to recipients of the service that have their place of establishment or residence in the Union, irrespective of the place of establishment of the providers of those services.

deleted

Amendment 104

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 — paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4.     This Regulation shall not apply to any service that is not an intermediary service or to any requirements imposed in respect of such a service, irrespective of whether the service is provided through the use of an intermediary service.

deleted

Amendment 105

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 — paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5.     This Regulation is without prejudice to the rules laid down by the following:

deleted

(a)

Directive 2000/31/EC;

 

(b)

Directive 2010/13/EC;

 

(c)

Union law on copyright and related rights;

 

(d)

Regulation (EU) …/…. on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online [TCO once adopted];

 

(e)

Regulation (EU) …./….on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters and Directive (EU) …./….laying down harmonised rules on the appointment of legal representatives for the purpose of gathering evidence in criminal proceedings [e-evidence once adopted]

 

(f)

Regulation (EU) 2019/1148;

 

(g)

Regulation (EU) 2019/1150;

 

(h)

Union law on consumer protection and product safety, including Regulation (EU) 2017/2394;

 

(i)

Union law on the protection of personal data, in particular Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC.

 

Amendment 106

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 1a

 

Scope

 

1.     This Regulation shall apply to intermediary services provided to recipients of the service that have their place of establishment or residence in the Union, irrespective of the place of establishment of the providers of those services.

 

2.     This Regulation shall not apply to any service that is not an intermediary service or to any requirements imposed in respect of such a service, irrespective of whether the service is provided through the use of an intermediary service.

 

3.     This Regulation is without prejudice to the rules laid down by the following:

 

(a)

Directive 2000/31/EC;

 

(b)

Directive 2010/13/EU;

 

(c)

Union law on copyright and related rights, in particular Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market;

 

(d)

Regulation (EU) 2021/784 on addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online;

 

(e)

Regulation (EU) …./….on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters and Directive (EU) …./….laying down harmonised rules on the appointment of legal representatives for the purpose of gathering evidence in criminal proceedings [e-evidence once adopted]

 

(f)

Regulation (EU) 2019/1148;

 

(g)

Regulation (EU) 2019/1150;

 

(h)

Union law on consumer protection and product safety, including Regulation (EU) 2017/2394, Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive 2001/95/EC on general product safety;

 

(i)

Union law on the protection of personal data, in particular Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC.

 

(j)

Directive (EU) 2019/882;

 

(k)

Directive (EU) 2018/1972;

 

(l)

Directive 2013/11/EU.

 

4.     By [12 months after the entry into force of this Regulation] the Commission shall publish guidelines with regard to the relationship between this Regulation and the legal acts referred to in Article 1a (3).

Amendment 107

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 — paragraph 1 — point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a)

‘information society services’ means services within the meaning of Article 1(1)(b) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535;

(a)

‘information society services’ means services as defined in Article 1(1)(b) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535;

Amendment 108

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 — paragraph 1 — point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b)

‘recipient of the service’ means any natural or legal person who uses the relevant intermediary service;

(b)

‘recipient of the service’ means any natural or legal person who uses the relevant intermediary service in order to seek information or to make it accessible ;

Amendment 109

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 — paragraph 1 — point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c)

‘consumer’ means any natural person who is acting for purposes which are outside his or her trade, business or profession;

(c)

‘consumer’ means any natural person who is acting for purposes which are outside his or her trade, business , craft, or profession;

Amendment 110

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 — paragraph 1 — point d — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d)

‘to offer services in the Union’ means enabling legal or natural persons in one or more Member States to use the services of the provider of information society services which has a substantial connection to the Union; such a substantial connection is deemed to exist where the provider has an establishment in the Union; in the absence of such an establishment, the assessment of a substantial connection is based on specific factual criteria, such as:

(d)

‘to offer services in the Union’ means enabling legal or natural persons in one or more Member States to use the services of a provider of information society services which has a substantial connection to the Union;

Amendment 111

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 — paragraph 1 — point d — indent 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a significant number of users in one or more Member States; or

deleted

Amendment 112

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 — paragraph 1 — point d — indent 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

the targeting of activities towards one or more Member States.

deleted

Amendment 113

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 — paragraph 1 — point d a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(da)

‘substantial connection to the Union’ means the connection of a provider with one or more Member States resulting either from its establishment in the Union, or in the absence of such an establishment, from the fact that the provider directs its activities towards one or more Member States;

Amendment 114

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 — paragraph 1 — point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(e)

‘trader’ means any natural person, or any legal person irrespective of whether privately or publicly owned, who is acting, including through any person acting in his or her name or on his or her behalf, for purposes relating to his or her trade, business, craft or profession;

(e)

‘trader’ means any natural person, or any legal person irrespective of whether privately or publicly owned, who is acting, including through any person acting in his or her name or on his or her behalf, for purposes directly relating to his or her trade, business, craft or profession;

Amendment 115

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 — paragraph 1 — point f — indent 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a ‘mere conduit’ service that consists of the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service, or the provision of access to a communication network;

a ‘mere conduit’ service that consists of the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service, or the provision of access to a communication network including technical auxiliary functional services ;

Amendment 116

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 — paragraph 1 — point f — indent 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a ‘caching’ service that consists of the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service, involving the automatic, intermediate and temporary storage of that information, for the sole purpose of making more efficient the information's onward transmission to other recipients upon their request;

a ‘caching’ service that consists of the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service, involving the automatic, intermediate and temporary storage of that information, performed for the sole purpose of making more efficient the information's onward transmission to other recipients upon their request;

Amendment 117

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 — paragraph 1 — point g

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(g)

‘illegal content’ means any information , which, in itself or by its reference to an activity, including the sale of products or provision of services is not in compliance with Union law or the law of a Member State, irrespective of the precise subject matter or nature of that law;

(g)

‘illegal content’ means any information or activity, including the sale of products or provision of services which is not in compliance with Union law or the law of a Member State, irrespective of the precise subject matter or nature of that law;

Amendment 118

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 — paragraph 1 — point h

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(h)

‘online platform’ means a provider of a hosting service which, at the request of a recipient of the service, stores and disseminates to the public information, unless that activity is a minor and purely ancillary feature of another service and, for objective and technical reasons cannot be used without that other service, and the integration of the feature into the other service is not a means to circumvent the applicability of this Regulation.

(h)

‘online platform’ means a provider of a hosting service which, at the request of a recipient of the service, stores and disseminates to the public information, unless that activity is a minor or a purely ancillary feature of another service or functionality of the principal service and, for objective and technical reasons, cannot be used without that other service, and the integration of the feature or functionality into the other service is not a means to circumvent the applicability of this Regulation.

Amendment 119

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 — paragraph 1 — point k

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(k)

‘online interface’ means any software, including a website or a part thereof, and applications, including mobile applications;

(k)

‘online interface’ means any software, including a website or a part thereof, and applications, including mobile applications which enables the recipients of the service to access and interact with the relevant intermediary service ;

Amendment 120

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 — paragraph 1 — point k a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ka)

‘trusted flagger’ means an entity that has been awarded such status by a Digital Services Coordinator;

Amendment 121

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 — paragraph 1 — point n

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(n)

‘advertisement’ means information designed to promote the message of a legal or natural person, irrespective of whether to achieve commercial or non-commercial purposes, and displayed by an online platform on its online interface against remuneration specifically for promoting that information ;

(n)

‘advertisement’ means information designed and disseminated to promote the message of a legal or natural person, irrespective of whether to achieve commercial or non-commercial purposes, and displayed by an online platform on its online interface against remuneration specifically in exchange for promoting that message ;

Amendment 122

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 — paragraph 1 — point n a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(na)

‘remuneration’ means economic compensation consisting of direct or indirect payment for the service provided, including where the intermediary service provider is not directly compensated by the recipient of the service or where the recipient of the service provides data to the service provider, except where such data is collected for the sole purpose of meeting legal requirements;

Amendment 123

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 — paragraph 1 — point o

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(o)

‘recommender system’ means a fully or partially automated system used by an online platform to suggest in its online interface specific information to recipients of the service, including as a result of a search initiated by the recipient or otherwise determining the relative order or prominence of information displayed;

(o)

‘recommender system’ means a fully or partially automated system used by an online platform to suggest , prioritise or curate in its online interface specific information to recipients of the service, including as a result of a search initiated by the recipient or otherwise determining the relative order or prominence of information displayed;

Amendment 124

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 — paragraph 1 — point p

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(p)

‘content moderation’ means the activities undertaken by providers of intermediary services aimed at detecting, identifying and addressing illegal content or information incompatible with their terms and conditions, provided by recipients of the service, including measures taken that affect the availability, visibility and accessibility of that illegal content or that information, such as demotion, disabling of access to, or removal thereof, or the recipients’ ability to provide that information, such as the termination or suspension of a recipient’s account;

(p)

‘content moderation’ means the activities , either automated or not automated, undertaken by providers of intermediary services aimed at detecting, identifying and addressing illegal content or information incompatible with their terms and conditions, provided by recipients of the service, including measures taken that affect the availability, visibility and accessibility of that illegal content or that information, such as demotion, disabling of access to, delisting, demonetisation or removal thereof, or the recipients’ ability to provide that information, such as the termination or suspension of a recipient’s account;

Amendment 125

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 — paragraph 1 — point q

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(q)

‘terms and conditions’ means all terms and conditions or specifications, irrespective of their name or form, which govern the contractual relationship between the provider of intermediary services and the recipients of the services.

(q)

‘terms and conditions’ means all terms and conditions or specifications, by the service provider irrespective of their name or form, which govern the contractual relationship between the provider of intermediary services and the recipients of the services.

Amendment 126

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 — paragraph 1 — point q a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(qa)

‘persons with disabilities’ means persons with disabilities within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive (EU) 2019/882.

Amendment 127

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 — paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.   This Article shall not affect the possibility for a  court or administrative authority, in accordance with Member States' legal systems, of requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement.

3.   This Article shall not affect the possibility for a  judicial or administrative authority, in accordance with Member States' legal systems, of requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement.

Amendment 128

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 — paragraph 1 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   Where an information society service is provided that consists of the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service, the service provider shall not be liable for the automatic, intermediate and temporary storage of that information, performed for the sole purpose of making more efficient the information's onward transmission to other recipients of the service upon their request, on condition that:

1.   Where an information society service is provided that consists of the transmission in communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service, the service provider shall not be liable for the automatic, intermediate and temporary storage of that information, performed for the sole purpose of making more efficient or secure the information's onward transmission to other recipients of the service upon their request, on condition that the provider :

Amendment 129

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 — paragraph 1 — point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a)

the provider does not modify the information;

(a)

does not modify the information;

Amendment 130

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 — paragraph 1 — point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b)

the provider complies with conditions on access to the information;

(b)

complies with conditions on access to the information;

Amendment 131

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 — paragraph 1 — point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c)

the provider complies with rules regarding the updating of the information, specified in a manner widely recognised and used by industry;

(c)

complies with rules regarding the updating of the information, specified in a manner widely recognised and used by industry;

Amendment 132

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 — paragraph 1 — point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d)

the provider does not interfere with the lawful use of technology, widely recognised and used by industry, to obtain data on the use of the information; and

(d)

does not interfere with the lawful use of technology, widely recognised and used by industry, to obtain data on the use of the information; and

Amendment 133

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 — paragraph 1 — point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(e)

the provider acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information it has stored upon obtaining actual knowledge of the fact that the information at the initial source of the transmission has been removed from the network, or access to it has been disabled, or that a court or an administrative authority has ordered such removal or disablement.

(e)

acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information it has stored upon obtaining actual knowledge of the fact that the information at the initial source of the transmission has been removed from the network, or access to it has been disabled, or that a court or an administrative authority has ordered such removal or disablement.

Amendment 134

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 — paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   This Article shall not affect the possibility for a  court or administrative authority, in accordance with Member States' legal systems, of requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement.

2.   This Article shall not affect the possibility for a  judicial or administrative authority, in accordance with Member States' legal systems, of requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement.

Amendment 135

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 — paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.   Paragraph 1 shall not apply with respect to liability under consumer protection law of online platforms allowing consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders, where such an online platform presents the specific item of information or otherwise enables the specific transaction at issue in a way that would lead an average and reasonably well-informed consumer to believe that the information, or the product or service that is the object of the transaction, is provided either by the online platform itself or by a recipient of the service who is acting under its authority or control.

3.   Paragraph 1 shall not apply with respect to liability under consumer protection law of online platforms allowing consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders, where such an online platform presents the specific item of information or otherwise enables the specific transaction at issue in a way that would lead a consumer to believe that the information, or the product or service that is the object of the transaction, is provided either by the online platform itself or by a recipient of the service who is acting under its authority or control.

Amendment 136

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 — paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4.   This Article shall not affect the possibility for a  court or administrative authority, in accordance with Member States' legal systems, of requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement.

4.   This Article shall not affect the possibility for a  judicial or administrative authority, in accordance with Member States' legal systems, of requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement.

Amendment 137

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Providers of intermediary services shall not be deemed ineligible for the exemptions from liability referred to in Articles 3, 4 and 5 solely because they carry out voluntary own-initiative investigations or other activities aimed at detecting, identifying and removing, or disabling of access to, illegal content, or take the necessary measures to comply with the requirements of Union law, including those set out in this Regulation.

1.    Providers of intermediary services shall not be deemed ineligible for the exemptions from liability referred to in Articles 3, 4, and 5 solely because they carry out voluntary own-initiative investigations or take measures aimed at detecting, identifying and removing, or disabling of access to, illegal content or take the necessary measures to comply with the requirements of national and Union law, including the Charter and the requirements set out in this Regulation.

Amendment 138

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 — paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1a.     Providers of intermediary services shall ensure that voluntary own-initiative investigations carried out and measures taken pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be effective and specific. Such own initiative investigations and measures shall be accompanied by appropriate safeguards, such as human oversight, documentation, or any additional measure to ensure and demonstrate that those investigations and measures are accurate, non-discriminatory, proportionate, transparent and do not lead to over-removal of content. Providers of intermediary services shall make best efforts to ensure that where automated means are used, the technology is sufficiently reliable to limit to the maximum extent possible the rate of errors where information is wrongly considered as illegal content.

Amendment 139

Proposal for a regulation

Article 7 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

No general obligation to monitor the information which providers of intermediary services transmit or store, nor actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity shall be imposed on those providers.

1.    No general obligation to monitor , neither de jure, nor de facto, through automated or non-automated means, the information which providers of intermediary services transmit or store, nor actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity or for monitoring the behaviour of natural persons shall be imposed on those providers.

Amendment 140

Proposal for a regulation

Article 7 — paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1a.     Providers of intermediary services shall not be obliged to use automated tools for content moderation or for monitoring the behaviour of natural persons.

Amendment 141

Proposal for a regulation

Article 7 — paragraph 1 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1b.     Member States shall not prevent providers of intermediary services from offering end-to-end encrypted services.

Amendment 142

Proposal for a regulation

Article 7 — paragraph 1 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1c.     Member States shall not impose a general obligation on providers of intermediary services to limit the anonymous use of their services. Member States shall not oblige providers of intermediary services to generally and indiscriminately retain personal data of the recipients of their services. Any targeted retention of a specific recipient’s data shall be ordered by a judicial authority in accordance with Union or national law.

Amendment 520/rev

Proposal for a regulation

Article 7 — paragraph 1 d (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1d.     Without prejudice to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC, providers shall make reasonable efforts to enable the use of and payment for that service without collecting personal data of the recipient.

Amendment 143

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   Providers of intermediary services shall, upon the receipt of an order to act against a specific item of illegal content, issued by the relevant national judicial or administrative authorities, on the basis of the applicable Union or national law, in conformity with Union law, inform the authority issuing the order of the effect given to the orders, without undue delay, specifying the action taken and the moment when the action was taken.

1.   Providers of intermediary services shall, upon the receipt via a secure communications channel of an order to act against one or more specific items of illegal content, received from and issued by the relevant national judicial or administrative authorities on the basis of the applicable Union or national law, in conformity with Union law, inform the authority issuing the order of the effect given to the orders, without undue delay, specifying the actions taken and the moment when the actions were taken.

Amendment 144

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 — paragraph 2 — point a — indent - 1 (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

a reference to the legal basis for the order;

Amendment 145

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 — paragraph 2 — point a — indent 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a statement of reasons explaining why the information is illegal content, by reference to the specific provision of Union or national law infringed ;

a sufficiently detailed statement of reasons explaining why the information is illegal content, by reference to the specific provision of Union or national law in conformity with Union law ;

Amendment 146

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 — paragraph 2 — point a — indent 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

identification of the issuing authority including the date, timestamp and electronic signature of the authority, that allows the recipient to authenticate the order and contact details of a person of contact within the said authority;

Amendment 147

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 — paragraph 2 — point a — indent 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

one or more exact uniform resource locators and, where necessary, additional information enabling the identification of the illegal content concerned;

a clear indication of the exact electronic location of that information, such as the exact URL or URLs where appropriate or when the exact electronic location is not precisely identifiable; one or more exact uniform resource locators and, where necessary, additional information enabling the identification of the illegal content concerned;

Amendment 148

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 — paragraph 2 — point a — indent 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

information about redress available to the provider of the service and to the recipient of the service who provided the content;

easily understandable information about redress mechanisms available to the provider of the service and to the recipient of the service who provided the content , including the deadlines for appeal ;

Amendment 149

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 — paragraph 2 — point a — indent 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

where necessary and proportionate, the decision not to disclose information about the removal of or disabling of access to the content for reasons of public security, such as the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime, not exceeding six weeks from that decision;

Amendment 150

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 — paragraph 2 — point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b)

the territorial scope of the order, on the basis of the applicable rules of Union and national law, including the Charter, and, where relevant, general principles of international law, does not exceed what is strictly necessary to achieve its objective;

(b)

the territorial scope of the order on the basis of the applicable rules of Union and national law in conformity with Union law, including the Charter, and, where relevant, general principles of international law, does not exceed what is strictly necessary to achieve its objective; the territorial scope of the order shall be limited to the territory of the Member State issuing the order unless the illegality of the content derives directly from Union law or the rights at stake require a wider territorial scope, in accordance with Union and international law;

Amendment 151

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 — paragraph 2 — point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c)

the order is drafted in the language declared by the provider and is sent to the point of contact, appointed by the provider, in accordance with Article 10.

(c)

the order is drafted in the language declared by the provider and is sent to the point of contact, appointed by the provider, in accordance with Article 10 or in one of the official languages of the Member State that issues the order against the specific item of illegal content; in such case, the point of contact of the service provider may request the competent authority to provide translation into the language declared by the provider;

Amendment 152

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 — paragraph 2 — point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ca)

the order is in compliance with Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC;

Amendment 153

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 — paragraph 2 — point c b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(cb)

where more than one provider of intermediary services is responsible for hosting the specific items of illegal content, the order is issued to the most appropriate provider that has the technical and operational ability to act against those specific items.

Amendment 154

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 — paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2a.     The Commission shall adopt implementing acts in accordance with Article 70, after consulting the Board, laying down a specific template and form for the orders, referred to in paragraph 1.

Amendment 155

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 — paragraph 2 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2b.     Providers of intermediary services who received an order shall have a right to an effective remedy. The Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State of establishment may choose to intervene on behalf of the provider in any redress, appeal or other legal processes in relation to the order.

 

The Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State of establishment may request the authority issuing the order to withdraw or repeal the order or adjust the territorial scope of the order to what is strictly necessary. Where such a request is refused, the Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State of establishment shall be entitled to seek the annulling, ceasing or adjustment of the effect of the order before the judicial authorities of the Member States issuing the order. Such proceedings shall be completed without undue delay.

Amendment 156

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 — paragraph 2 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2c.     If the provider cannot comply with the removal order because it contains manifest errors or does not contain sufficient information for its execution, it shall, without undue delay, inform the judicial or administrative authority that issued the order asking for the necessary clarification.

Amendment 157

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 — paragraph 2 d (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2d.     The authority issuing the order shall transmit that order and the information received from the provider of intermediary services as to the effect given to the order to the Digital Services Coordinator from the Member State of the issuing authority.

Amendment 158

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 — paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4.   The conditions and requirements laid down in this article shall be without prejudice to requirements under national criminal procedural law in conformity with Union law.

4.   The conditions and requirements laid down in this article shall be without prejudice to requirements under national criminal procedural law and administrative procedural law in conformity with Union law , including the Charter . While acting in accordance with such laws, authorities shall not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain the objectives pursued.

Amendment 159

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 — paragraph 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

4a.     Member States shall ensure that the relevant authorities may, at the request of an applicant whose rights are infringed by illegal content, issue against the relevant provider of intermediary services an injunction order in accordance with this Article to remove or disable access to that content.

Amendment 160

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   Providers of intermediary services shall, upon receipt of an order to provide a specific item of information about one or more specific individual recipients of the service, issued by the relevant national judicial or administrative authorities on the basis of the applicable Union or national law, in conformity with Union law, inform without undue delay the authority of issuing the order of its receipt and the effect given to the order.

1.   Providers of intermediary services shall, upon receipt via a secure communications channel of an order to provide a specific item of information about one or more specific individual recipients of the service, received from and issued by the relevant national judicial or administrative authorities on the basis of the applicable Union or national law, in conformity with Union law, without undue delay the authority of issuing the order of its receipt and the effect given to the order.

Amendment 161

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 — paragraph 2 — point a — indent - 1 (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

the identification details of the judicial or administrative authority issuing the order and authentication of the order by that authority, including the date, time stamp and electronic signature of the authority issuing the order to provide information;

Amendment 162

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 — paragraph 2 — point a — indent - 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

a reference to the legal basis for the order;

Amendment 163

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 — paragraph 2 — point a — indent - 1 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

a clear indication of the exact electronic location, an account name, or a unique identifier of the recipient on whom information is sought;

Amendment 164

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 — paragraph 2 — point a — indent 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

a statement of reasons explaining the objective for which the information is required and why the requirement to provide the information is necessary and proportionate to determine compliance by the recipients of the intermediary services with applicable Union or national rules, unless such a statement cannot be provided for reasons related to the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences;

a sufficiently detailed statement of reasons explaining the objective for which the information is required and why the requirement to provide the information is necessary and proportionate to determine compliance by the recipients of the intermediary services with applicable Union or national rules, unless such a statement cannot be provided for reasons related to the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences;

Amendment 165

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 — paragraph 2 — point a — indent 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

where the information sought constitutes personal data within the meaning of Article 4, point (1), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 or Article 3, point (1), of Directive (EU) 2016/680, a justification that the order is in accordance with applicable data protection law;

Amendment 166

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 — paragraph 2 — point a — indent 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

information about redress available to the provider and to the recipients of the service concerned;

information about redress available to the provider and to the recipients of the service concerned including deadlines for appeal ;

Amendment 167

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 — paragraph 2 — point a — indent 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

an indication on whether the provider should inform without undue delay the recipient of the service concerned, including information about the data being sought; where information is requested in the context of criminal proceedings, the request for that information shall be in compliance with Directive (EU) 2016/680, and the information to the recipient of the service concerned about that request may be delayed as long as necessary and proportionate to avoid obstructing the relevant criminal proceedings, taking into account the rights of the suspected and accused persons and without prejudice to defence rights and effective legal remedies. Such a request shall be duly justified, specify the duration of the obligation of confidentiality and shall be subject to periodic review.

Amendment 168

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 — paragraph 2 — point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c)

the order is drafted in the language declared by the provider and is sent to the point of contact appointed by that provider, in accordance with Article 10;

(c)

the order is drafted in the language declared by the provider and is sent to the point of contact appointed by that provider, in accordance with Article 10 or in one of the official languages of the Member State that issues the order against the item of illegal content ; in such case, the point of contact may request the competent authority to provide translation into the language declared by the provider;

Amendment 169

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 — paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2a.     The Commission shall adopt implementing acts in accordance with Article 70, after consulting the Board, laying down specific template and form for the orders referred to in paragraph 1.

Amendment 170

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 — paragraph 2 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2b.     The provider of intermediary services who received an order shall have a right to an effective remedy. That right shall include the right to challenge the order before the judicial authorities of the Member State of the issuing competent authority, in particular where such an order is not incompliance with Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC. The Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State of establishment may choose to intervene on behalf of the provider in any redress, appeal or other legal proceedings in relation to the order.

 

The Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State of establishment may request the authority issuing the order to withdraw or repeal the order. Where such a request is refused, the Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State of establishment shall be entitled to seek the annulling, ceasing or adjustment of the effect of the order before the judicial of the Member States of the order. Such proceedings shall be completed without undue delay.

Amendment 171

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 — paragraph 2 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2c.     If the provider cannot comply with the order because it contains manifest errors or does not contain sufficient information to enable it to be executed, it shall, without undue delay, inform the judicial or administrative authority that issued that information order and request the necessary clarifications.

Amendment 172

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 — paragraph 2 d (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2d.     The authority issuing the order to provide a specific item of information shall transmit that order and the information received from the provider of intermediary services as to the effect given to the order to the Digital Services Coordinator from the Member State of the issuing authority.

Amendment 173

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 — paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4.   The conditions and requirements laid down in this article shall be without prejudice to requirements under national criminal procedural law in conformity with Union law.

4.   The conditions and requirements laid down in this article shall be without prejudice to requirements under national criminal procedural law or administrative procedural law in conformity with Union law.

Amendment 174

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 9a

Effective remedies for recipients of the service

1.     Recipients of the service whose content was removed according to Article 8 or whose information was sought according to Article 9 shall have the right to effective remedies against such orders, including, where applicable, restauration of content where such content has been in compliance with the terms and conditions, but has been erroneously considered as illegal by the service provider, without prejudice to remedies available under Directive (EU) 2016/680 and Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

2.     Such right to an effective remedy shall be exercised before a judicial authority in the issuing Member State in accordance with national law and shall include the possibility to challenge the legality of the measure, including its necessity and proportionality.

3.     Digital Services Coordinators shall develop national tools and guidance to recipients of the service as regards complaint and redress mechanisms applicable in their respective territory.

Amendment 175

Proposal for a regulation

Chapter III — title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Due diligence obligations for a transparent and safe online environment

Due diligence obligations for a transparent , accessible and safe online environment

Amendment 176

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 — title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Points of contact

Points of contact for Member States’ authorities, the Commission and the Board

Amendment 177

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   Providers of intermediary services shall establish a single point of contact allowing for direct communication , by electronic means, with Member States’ authorities, the Commission and the Board referred to in Article 47 for the application of this Regulation.

1.   Providers of intermediary services shall designate a single point of contact enabling them to communicate directly , by electronic means, with Member States’ authorities, the Commission and the Board referred to in Article 47 for the application of this Regulation.

Amendment 178

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 — paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   Providers of intermediary services shall make public the information necessary to easily identify and communicate with their single points of contact.

2.   Providers of intermediary services shall communicate to the Member States' authorities, the Commission and the Board, the information necessary to easily identify and communicate with their single points of contact , including the name, the email address, the physical address and the telephone number, and shall ensure that the information is kept up to date .

Amendment 179

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 — paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2a.     Providers of intermediary services may establish the same single point of contact for this Regulation and another single point of contact as required under other Union law. When doing so, the provider shall inform the Commission of this decision.

Amendment 180

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 10a

Points of contact for recipients of services

1.     Providers of intermediary services shall designate a single point of contact that enables recipients of services to communicate directly with them.

2.     In particular, providers of intermediary services shall enable recipients of services to communicate with them by providing rapid, direct and efficient means of communication such as telephone number, email addresses, electronic contact forms, chatbots or instant messaging as well as the physical address of the establishment of the provider of intermediary services, in a user-friendly, and easily accessible manner. Providers of intermediary services shall also enable recipients of services to choose the means of direct communication, which shall not solely rely on automated tools.

3.     Providers of intermediary services shall make all reasonable efforts to guarantee that sufficient human and financial resources are allocated to ensure that the communication, referred to in paragraph 1 is performed in a timely and efficient manner.

Amendment 181

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   Providers of intermediary services which do not have an establishment in the Union but which offer services in the Union shall designate, in writing, a legal or natural person as their legal representative in one of the Member States where the provider offers its services.

1.   Providers of intermediary services which do not have an establishment in the Union but which offer services in the Union shall designate, in writing, a legal or natural person to act as their legal representative in one of the Member States where the provider offers its services.

Amendment 182

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 — paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   Providers of intermediary services shall mandate their legal representatives to be addressed in addition to or instead of the provider by the Member States’ authorities, the Commission and the Board on all issues necessary for the receipt of, compliance with and enforcement of decisions issued in relation to this Regulation. Providers of intermediary services shall provide their legal representative with the necessary powers and resource to cooperate with the Member States’ authorities, the Commission and the Board and comply with those decisions.

2.   Providers of intermediary services shall mandate their legal representatives to be addressed in addition to or instead of the provider by the Member States’ authorities, the Commission and the Board on all issues necessary for the receipt of, compliance with and enforcement of decisions issued in relation to this Regulation. Providers of intermediary services shall provide their legal representative with the necessary powers and sufficient resources in order to guarantee their efficient and timely cooperation with the Member States’ authorities, the Commission and the Board and comply with any of those decisions.

Amendment 183

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 — paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4.   Providers of intermediary services shall notify the name, address, the electronic mail address and telephone number of their legal representative to the Digital Service Coordinator in the Member State where that legal representative resides or is established. They shall ensure that that information is up to date.

4.   Providers of intermediary services shall notify the name, postal address, the electronic mail address and telephone number of their legal representative to the Digital Service Coordinator in the Member State where that legal representative resides or is established They shall ensure that that information is kept up to date. The Digital Service Coordinator in the Member State where that legal representative resides or is established shall, upon receiving that information, make reasonable efforts to assess its validity.

Amendment 477

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 — paragraph 5 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

5a.     Providers of intermediary services that qualify as micro, small or medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) within the meaning of the Annex to Recommendation 2003/361/EC, and who have been unsuccessful in obtaining the services of a legal representative after reasonable effort, shall be able to request that the Digital Service Coordinator of the Member State where the enterprise intends to establish a legal representative facilitates further cooperation and recommends possible solutions, including possibilities for collective representation.

Amendment 513

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   Providers of intermediary services shall include information on any restrictions that they impose in relation to the use of their service in respect of information provided by the recipients of the service, in their terms and conditions. That information shall include information on any policies, procedures, measures and tools used for the purpose of content moderation, including algorithmic decision-making and human review. It shall be set out in clear and unambiguous language and shall be publicly available in an easily accessible format.

1.   Providers of intermediary services shall use fair, non-discriminatory and transparent terms and conditions. Providers of intermediary services shall draft those terms and conditions in clear , plain, user friendly and unambiguous language and shall make them publicly available in an easily accessible and machine-readable format in the languages of the Member State towards which the service is directed . In their terms and conditions, providers of intermediary services shall respect the freedom of expression, freedom and pluralism of the media, and other fundamental rights and freedoms, as enshrined in the Charter as well as the rules applicable to the media in the Union.

Amendment 186

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 — paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1a.     In their terms and conditions, providers of intermediary services shall include information on any restrictions or modifications that they impose in relation to the use of their service in respect of content provided by the recipients of the service. Providers of intermediary services shall also include easily accessible information on the right of the recipients to terminate the use of their service. Providers of intermediary services shall also include information on any policies, procedures, measures and tools used by the provider of the intermediary service for the purpose of content moderation, including algorithmic decision-making and human review.

Amendment 187

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 — paragraph 1 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1b.     Providers of intermediary services shall notify expeditiously the recipients of the service of any significant change to the terms and conditions and provide an explanation thereof.

Amendment 188

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 — paragraph 1 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1c.     Where an intermediary service is primarily directed at minors or is pre-dominantly used by them, the provider shall explain conditions for and restrictions on the use of the service in a way that minors can understand.

Amendment 189

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 — paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   Providers of intermediary services shall act in a diligent, objective and proportionate manner in applying and enforcing the restrictions referred to in paragraph 1, with due regard to the rights and legitimate interests of all parties involved, including the applicable fundamental rights of the recipients of the service as enshrined in the Charter.

2.   Providers of intermediary services shall act in a  fair, transparent, coherent, diligent, timely, non-arbitrary, non-discriminatory and proportionate manner in applying and enforcing the restrictions referred to in paragraph 1, with due regard to the rights and legitimate interests of all parties involved, including the applicable fundamental rights of the recipients of the service as enshrined in the Charter.

Amendment 190

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 — paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2a.     Providers of intermediary services shall provide recipients of services with a concise, easily accessible and in machine-readable format summary of the terms and conditions, in clear, user-friendly and unambiguous language. That summary shall identify the main elements of the information requirements, including the possibility of easily opting-out from optional clauses and the remedies and redress mechanisms available.

Amendment 191

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 — paragraph 2 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2b.     Providers of intermediary services may use graphical elements such as icons or images to illustrate the main elements of the information requirements.

Amendment 192

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 — paragraph 2 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2c.     Very large online platforms as defined in Article 25 shall publish their terms and conditions in the official languages of all Member States in which they offer their services.

Amendment 193

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 — paragraph 2 d (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2d.     Providers of intermediary services shall not require recipients of the service other than traders to make their legal identity public in order to use the service.

Amendment 538

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 — paragraph 2 e (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2e.     Terms and conditions of providers of intermediary services shall respect the essential principles of fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter.

Amendment 539

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 — paragraph 2 f (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2f.     Terms that do not comply with this Article shall not be binding on recipients.

Amendment 194

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 — paragraph 1 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   Providers of intermediary services shall publish, at least once a year, clear, easily comprehensible and detailed reports on any content moderation they engaged in during the relevant period. Those reports shall include, in particular, information on the following, as applicable:

1.   Providers of intermediary services shall publish in a standardised and machine-readable format and in an easily accessible manner , at least once a year, clear, easily comprehensible and detailed reports on any content moderation they engaged in during the relevant period. Those reports shall include, in particular, information on the following, as applicable:

Amendment 195

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 — paragraph 1 — point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a)

the number of orders received from Member States’ authorities, categorised by the type of illegal content concerned, including orders issued in accordance with Articles 8 and 9, and the average time needed for taking the action specified in those orders ;

(a)

the number of orders received from Member States’ authorities, categorised by the type of illegal content concerned, including orders issued in accordance with Articles 8 and 9, and the average time needed to inform the authority issuing the order of its receipt and the effect given to the order ;

Amendment 196

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 — paragraph 1 — point a a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(aa)

where applicable, the complete number of content moderators allocated for each official language per Member State, and a qualitative description of whether and how automated tools for content moderation are used in each official language;

Amendment 197

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 — paragraph 1 — point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b)

the number of notices submitted in accordance with Article 14, categorised by the type of alleged illegal content concerned, any action taken pursuant to the notices by differentiating whether the action was taken on the basis of the law or the terms and conditions of the provider, and the average time needed for taking the action;

(b)

the number of notices submitted in accordance with Article 14, categorised by the type of alleged illegal content concerned , the number of notices submitted by trusted flaggers , any action taken pursuant to the notices by differentiating whether the action was taken on the basis of the law or the terms and conditions of the provider, and the average and median time needed for taking the action; providers of intermediary services may add additional information as to the reasons for the average time for taking the action;

Amendment 198

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 — paragraph 1 — point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c)

the content moderation engaged in at the providers’ own initiative, including the number and type of measures taken that affect the availability, visibility and accessibility of information provided by the recipients of the service and the recipients’ ability to provide information, categorised by the type of reason and basis for taking those measures;

(c)

meaningful and comprehensible information about the content moderation engaged in at the providers’ own initiative, including the use of automated tools, the number and type of measures taken that affect the availability, visibility and accessibility of information provided by the recipients of the service and the recipients’ ability to provide information, categorised by the type of reason and basis for taking those measures , as well as, where applicable, measures taken to provide training and assistance to members of staff who are engaged in content moderation, and to ensure that non-infringing content is not affected ;

Amendment 199

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 — paragraph 1 — point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d)

the number of complaints received through the internal complaint-handling system referred to in Article 17, the basis for those complaints, decisions taken in respect of those complaints, the average time needed for taking those decisions and the number of instances where those decisions were reversed.

(d)

the number of complaints received through the internal complaint-handling system referred to in Article 17, the basis for those complaints, decisions taken in respect of those complaints, the average and median time needed for taking those decisions and the number of instances where those decisions were reversed.

Amendment 200

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 — paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1a.     The information provided shall be presented per Member State in which services are offered and in the Union as a whole.

Amendment 201

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 — paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   Paragraph 1 shall not apply to providers of intermediary services that qualify as micro or small enterprises within the meaning of the Annex to Recommendation 2003/361/EC.

2.   Paragraph 1 shall not apply to providers of intermediary services that qualify as micro or small enterprises within the meaning of the Annex to Recommendation 2003/361/EC , which do not also qualify as very large online platforms .

Amendment 202

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 13a

 

Online interface design and organisation

 

1.     Providers of intermediary services shall not use the structure, function or manner of operation of their online interface, or any part thereof, to distort or impair recipients of services’ ability to make a free, autonomous and informed decision or choice. In particular, providers of intermediary services shall refrain from:

 

(a)

giving more visual prominence to any of the consent options when asking the recipient of the service for a decision;

 

(b)

repeatedly requesting that a recipient of the service consents to data processing, where such consent has been refused, pursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, regardless of the scope or purpose of such processing, especially by presenting a pop-up that interferes with user experience;

 

(c)

urging a recipient of the service to change a setting or configuration of the service after the recipient has already made a choice;

 

(d)

making the procedure of terminating a service significantly more cumbersome than signing up to it; or

 

(e)

requesting consent where the recipient of the service exercises his or her right to object by automated means using technical specifications, in line with Article 21(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

 

This paragraph shall be without prejudice to Regulation(EU) 2016/679.

 

2.     The Commission is empowered to adopt a delegated act to update the list of practices referred to in paragraph 1.

 

3.     Where applicable, providers of intermediary services shall adapt their design features to ensure a high level of privacy, safety, and security by design for minors.

Amendment 203

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 — paragraph 2 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   The mechanisms referred to in paragraph 1 shall be such as to facilitate the submission of sufficiently precise and adequately substantiated notices , on the basis of which a diligent economic operator can identify the illegality of the content in question . To that end, the providers shall take the necessary measures to enable and facilitate the submission of notices containing all of the following elements:

2.   The mechanisms referred to in paragraph 1 shall be such as to facilitate the submission of sufficiently precise and adequately substantiated notices. To that end, the providers shall take the necessary measures to enable and facilitate the submission of valid notices containing all of the following elements:

Amendment 204

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 — paragraph 2 — point a a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(aa)

where possible, evidence that substantiates the claim;

Amendment 205

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 — paragraph 2 — point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b)

a clear indication of the electronic location of that information, in particular the exact URL or URLs, and , where necessary, additional information enabling the identification of the illegal content;

(b)

where relevant, a clear indication of the exact electronic location of that information, for example, the exact URL or URLs, or , where necessary, additional information enabling the identification of the illegal content as applicable to the type of content and to the specific type of hosting service ;

Amendment 206

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 — paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.   Notices that include the elements referred to in paragraph 2 shall be considered to give rise to actual knowledge or awareness for the purposes of Article 5 in respect of the specific item of information concerned.

3.   Notices that include the elements referred to in paragraph 2 , on the basis of which a diligent hosting service provider is able to establish the illegality of the content in question without conducting a legal or factual examination, shall be considered to give rise to actual knowledge or awareness for the purposes of Article 5 in respect of the specific item of information concerned.

Amendment 207

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 — paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

3a.     Information that has been the subject of a notice shall remain accessible while the assessment of its legality is still pending, without prejudice to the right of providers of hosting services to apply their terms and conditions. Providers of hosting services shall not be held liable for failure to remove notified information, while the assessment of legality is still pending.

Amendment 208

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 — paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4.   Where the notice contains the name and an electronic mail address of the individual or entity that submitted it, the provider of hosting services shall promptly send a confirmation of receipt of the notice to that individual or entity.

4.   Where the notice contains the name and an electronic mail address of the individual or entity that submitted it, the provider of hosting services shall , without undue delay, send a confirmation of receipt of the notice to that individual or entity.

Amendment 209

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 — paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5.   The provider shall also, without undue delay, notify that individual or entity of its decision in respect of the information to which the notice relates, providing information on the redress possibilities in respect of that decision .

5.   The provider shall also, without undue delay, notify that individual or entity of its action in respect of the information to which the notice relates, providing information on the redress possibilities.

Amendment 210

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 — paragraph 5 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

5a.     The anonymity of individuals who submitted a notice shall be ensured towards the recipient of the service who provided the content, except in cases of alleged violations of personality rights or of intellectual property rights.

Amendment 211

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 — paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6.   Providers of hosting services shall process any notices that they receive under the mechanisms referred to in paragraph 1, and take their decisions in respect of the information to which the notices relate, in a timely, diligent and objective manner. Where they use automated means for that processing or decision-making, they shall include information on such use in the notification referred to in paragraph 4.

6.   Providers of hosting services shall process any notices that they receive under the mechanisms referred to in paragraph 1 and take their decisions in respect of the information to which the notices relate, in a timely, diligent , non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary manner. Where they use automated means for that processing or decision-making, they shall include information on such use in the notification referred to in paragraph 4. Where the provider has no technical, operational or contractual ability to act against specific items of illegal content, it may hand over a notice to the provider that has direct control of specific items of illegal content, while informing the notifying person or entity and the relevant Digital Services Coordinator.

Amendment 212

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   Where a provider of hosting services decides to remove or disable access to specific items of information provided by the recipients of the service, irrespective of the means used for detecting, identifying or removing or disabling access to that information and of the reason for its decision, it shall inform the recipient, at the latest at the time of the removal or disabling of access, of the decision and provide a clear and specific statement of reasons for that decision.

1.   Where a provider of hosting services decides to remove, disable access to, demote or to impose other measures with regard to specific items of information provided by the recipients of the service, irrespective of the means used for detecting, identifying or removing or disabling access to that information and of the reason for its decision, it shall inform the recipient, at the latest at the time of the removal or disabling of access, of the decision and provide a clear and specific statement of reasons for that decision.

 

This obligation shall not apply where the content is deceptive high-volume commercial content, or it has been requested by a judicial or law enforcement authority not to inform the recipient due to an ongoing criminal investigations until the criminal investigations is closed.

Amendment 213

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 — paragraph 2 — point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a)

whether the decision entails either the removal of , or the disabling of access to , the information and, where relevant, the territorial scope of the disabling of access ;

(a)

whether the action entails either the removal, the disabling of access, the demotion of, or imposes other measures with regard to information and, where relevant, the territorial scope of the action and its duration, including, where an action was taken pursuant to Article 14, an explanation about why the action did not exceed what was strictly necessary to achieve its purpose ;

Amendment 214

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 — paragraph 2 — point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b)

the facts and circumstances relied on in taking the decision , including where relevant whether the decision was taken pursuant to a notice submitted in accordance with Article 14;

(b)

the facts and circumstances relied on in taking the action , including where relevant whether the action was taken pursuant to a notice submitted in accordance with Article 14 or based on voluntary own-initiative investigations or to an order issued in accordance with Article 8 and where appropriate, the identity of the notifier ;

Amendment 215

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 — paragraph 2 — point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c)

where applicable, information on the use made of automated means in taking the decision , including where the decision was taken in respect of content detected or identified using automated means;

(c)

where applicable, information on the use made of automated means in taking the action , including where the action was taken in respect of content detected or identified using automated means;

Amendment 216

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 — paragraph 2 — point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d)

where the decision concerns allegedly illegal content, a reference to the legal ground relied on and explanations as to why the information is considered to be illegal content on that ground;

(d)

where the action concerns allegedly illegal content, a reference to the legal ground relied on and explanations as to why the information is considered to be illegal content on that ground;

Amendment 217

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 — paragraph 2 — point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(e)

where the decision is based on the alleged incompatibility of the information with the terms and conditions of the provider, a reference to the contractual ground relied on and explanations as to why the information is considered to be incompatible with that ground;

(e)

where the action is based on the alleged incompatibility of the information with the terms and conditions of the provider, a reference to the contractual ground relied on and explanations as to why the information is considered to be incompatible with that ground;

Amendment 218

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 — paragraph 2 — point f

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(f)

information on the redress possibilities available to the recipient of the service in respect of the decision , in particular through internal complaint-handling mechanisms, out-of-court dispute settlement and judicial redress.

(f)

clear, user-friendly information on the redress possibilities available to the recipient of the service in respect of the action , in particular , where applicable through internal complaint-handling mechanisms, out-of-court dispute settlement and judicial redress.

Amendment 219

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 — paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4.   Providers of hosting services shall publish the decisions and the statements of reasons, referred to in paragraph 1 in a publicly accessible database managed by the Commission. That information shall not contain personal data.

4.   Providers of hosting services shall publish at least once a year the actions and the statements of reasons, referred to in paragraph 1 in a publicly accessible machine-readable database managed and published by the Commission. That information shall not contain personal data.

Amendment 220

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 15 a

 

Notification of suspicions of criminal offences

 

1.     Where a provider of hosting services becomes aware of any information giving rise to a suspicion that a serious criminal offence involving an imminent threat to the life or safety of persons has taken place, is taking place or planned to take place, it shall promptly inform the law enforcement or judicial authorities of the Member State or Member States concerned of its suspicion and provide, upon their request, all the relevant information available.

 

2.     Where the provider of hosting services cannot identify with reasonable certainty the Member State concerned, it shall inform the law enforcement authorities of the Member State in which it is established or has its legal representative and may inform Europol.

 

For the purpose of this Article, the Member State concerned shall be the Member State where the offence is suspected to have taken place, to be taking place or to be planned to take place, or the Member State where the suspected offender resides or is located, or the Member State where the victim of the suspected offence resides or is located. For the purpose of this Article, Member States shall notify to the Commission the list of its competent law enforcement or judicial authorities.

 

3.     Unless instructed otherwise by the informed authority, the provider of hosting services shall remove or disable the content.

 

4.     Information obtained by a law enforcement or judicial authority of a Member State in accordance with paragraph 1 shall not be used for any purpose other than those directly related to the individual serious criminal offence notified.

 

5.     The Commission shall adopt an implementing act setting down a template for notifications under paragraph 1.

Amendment 221

Proposal for a regulation

Article 16 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

This Section shall not apply to online platforms that qualify as micro or small enterprises within the meaning of the Annex to Recommendation 2003/361/EC.

1.    This Section shall not apply to online platforms that qualify as micro or small enterprises within the meaning of the Annex to Recommendation 2003/361/EC and which do not qualify as a very large online platforms as defined by Article 25 of this Regulation .

 

2.     Providers of intermediary services may submit an application accompanied by a justification for a waiver from the requirements of this section provided that they:

 

(a)

do not present significant systemic risks and have limited exposure to illegal content; and

 

(b)

qualify as non-for-profit or qualify as a medium enterprise within the meaning of the Annex to Recommendation 2003/361/EC.

 

3.     The application shall be submitted to the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment who shall conduct a preliminary assessment. The Digital Services Coordinator of establishment shall transmit to the Commission the application accompanied by its assessment and where applicable, a recommendation on the Commission’s decision. The Commission shall examine such an application and, after consulting the Board, may issue a total or a partial waiver from the requirements of this Section.

 

4.     Where the Commission grants such a waiver, it shall monitor the use of the waiver by the provider of intermediary services to ensure that the conditions for use of the waiver are respected.

 

5.     Upon the request of the Board, the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment or the provider, or on its own initiative, the Commission may review or revoke the waiver in whole or in parts.

 

6.     The Commission shall maintain a list of all waivers issued and their conditions and shall make the list publicly available.

 

7.     The Commission shall be empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 69 as to the process and procedure for the implementation of the waiver system in relation with this Article.

Amendment 222

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 — paragraph 1 — point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a)

decisions to remove or disable access to the information;

(a)

decisions to remove , demote, disable access to or impose other measures that restrict visibility, availability or accessibility of the information;

Amendment 223

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 — paragraph 1 — point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b)

decisions to suspend or terminate the provision of the service, in whole or in part, to the recipients;

(b)

decisions to suspend or terminate , or limit the provision of the service, in whole or in part, to the recipients;

Amendment 224

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 — paragraph 1 — point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ca)

decisions to restrict the ability to monetise content provided by the recipients.

Amendment 225

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 — paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1a.     The period of at least six months as set out in paragraph 1 shall be considered to start on the day on which the recipient of the service is informed about the decision in accordance with Article 15.

Amendment 226

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 — paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   Online platforms shall ensure that their internal complaint-handling systems are easy to access, user-friendly and enable and facilitate the submission of sufficiently precise and adequately substantiated complaints.

2.   Online platforms shall ensure that their internal complaint-handling systems are easy to access, user-friendly , including for persons with disabilities and minors, non-discriminatory and enable and facilitate the submission of sufficiently precise and adequately substantiated complaints. Online platforms shall set out the rules of procedure of their internal complaint handling system in their terms and conditions in a clear, user-friendly and easily accessible manner.

Amendment 227

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 — paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.   Online platforms shall handle complaints submitted through their internal complaint-handling system in a timely, diligent and objective manner. Where a complaint contains sufficient grounds for the online platform to consider that the information to which the complaint relates is not illegal and is not incompatible with its terms and conditions, or contains information indicating that the complainant’s conduct does not warrant the suspension or termination of the service or the account, it shall reverse its decision referred to in paragraph 1 without undue delay.

3.   Online platforms shall handle complaints submitted through their internal complaint-handling system in a timely, non-discriminatory, diligent and non-arbitrary manner and within ten working days starting on the date on which the online platform received the complaint . Where a complaint contains sufficient grounds for the online platform to consider that the information to which the complaint relates is not illegal and is not incompatible with its terms and conditions, or contains information indicating that the complainant’s conduct does not warrant the suspension or termination of the service or the account, it shall reverse its decision referred to in paragraph 1 without undue delay.

Amendment 228

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 — paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5.   Online platforms shall ensure that the decisions, referred to in paragraph 4, are not solely taken on the basis of automated means.

5.   Online platforms shall ensure that recipients of the service are given the possibility, where necessary, to contact a human interlocutor at the time of the submission of the complaint and that the decisions, referred to in paragraph 4, are not solely taken on the basis of automated means. Online platform shall ensure that decisions are taken by qualified staff.

Amendment 229

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 — paragraph 5 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

5a.     Recipients of the service shall have the possibility to seek swift judicial redress in accordance with the laws of the Member States concerned.

Amendment 230

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 — paragraph 1 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   Recipients of the service addressed by the decisions referred to in Article 17(1), shall be entitled to select any out-of-court dispute that has been certified in accordance with paragraph 2 in order to resolve disputes relating to those decisions, including complaints that could not be resolved by means of the internal complaint-handling system referred to in that Article. Online platforms shall engage, in good faith, with the body selected with a view to resolving the dispute and shall be bound by the decision taken by the body.

1.   Recipients of the service addressed by the decisions referred to in Article 17(1), taken by the online platform on the grounds that the information provided by the recipients is illegal content or incompatible with its terms and conditions , shall be entitled to select any out-of-court dispute settlement body that has been certified in accordance with paragraph 2 in order to resolve disputes relating to those decisions, including complaints that could not be resolved by means of the internal complaint-handling system referred to in that Article.

Amendment 231

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 — paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1a.     Both parties shall engage, in good faith, with the independent, external certified body selected with a view to resolving the dispute and shall be bound by the decision taken by the body. The possibility to select any out-of-court dispute settlement body shall be easily accessible on the online interface of the online platform in a clear and user-friendly manner.

Amendment 232

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 — paragraph 2 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   The Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State where the out-of-court dispute settlement body is established shall, at the request of that body, certify the body, where the body has demonstrated that it meets all of the following conditions:

2.   The Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State where the out-of-court dispute settlement body is established shall, at the request of that body, certify the body for a maximum of three years, which can be renewed , where the body and persons in charge of the out-of-court dispute settlement body has demonstrated that it meets all of the following conditions:

Amendment 233

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 — paragraph 2 — point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a)

it is impartial and independent of online platforms and recipients of the service provided by the online platforms;

(a)

it is independent, including financially independent , and impartial towards online platforms, recipients of the service provided by the online platforms and towards individuals or entities that have submitted notices ;

Amendment 234

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 — paragraph 2 — point b a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ba)

its members are remunerated in a way that is not linked to the outcome of the procedure;

Amendment 235

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 — paragraph 2 — point b b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(bb)

the natural persons in charge of dispute resolution commit not to work for the online platform or a professional organisation or business association of which the online platform is a member for a period of three years after their position in the body has ended, and have not worked for such an organisation for two years prior to taking up this role;

Amendment 236

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 — paragraph 2 — point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c)

the dispute settlement is easily accessible through electronic communication technology;

(c)

the dispute settlement is easily accessible , including for persons with disabilities, through electronic communication technology and provides for the possibility to submit a complaint and the requisite supporting documents online ;

Amendment 237

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 — paragraph 2 — point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(e)

the dispute settlement takes place in accordance with clear and fair rules of procedure.

(e)

the dispute settlement takes place in accordance with clear and fair rules of procedure which are clearly visible and easily and publicly accessible .

Amendment 238

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 — paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2a.     The Digital Services Coordinator shall reassess on a yearly basis whether the certified out-of-court dispute settlement body continues to fulfil the conditions, referred to in paragraph 2. If this is not the case, the Digital Services Coordinator shall revoke the status from the out-of-court dispute settlement body.

Amendment 239

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 — paragraph 2 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2b.     The Digital Service Coordinator shall draw up a report every two years listing the number of complaints the out of court dispute settlement body has received annually, the outcomes of the decisions delivered, any systematic or sectoral problems identified, and the average time taken to resolve the disputes. The report shall in particular:

(a)

identify best practices of the out-of-court dispute settlement bodies;

(b)

report, where appropriate, on any shortcomings, supported by statistics, that hinder the functioning of the out-of-court dispute settlement bodies for both domestic and cross-border disputes;

(c)

make recommendations on how to improve the effective and efficient functioning of the out-of-court dispute settlement bodies, where appropriate.

Amendment 240

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 — paragraph 2 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2c.     Certified out-of-court dispute settlement bodies shall conclude dispute resolution proceedings within a reasonable period of time and no later than 90 calendar days after the date on which the certified body has received the complaint. The procedure shall be considered terminated on the date on which the certified body has made the decision of out-of-court dispute settlement procedure available.

Amendment 241

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 — paragraph 3 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.   If the body decides the dispute in favour of the recipient of the service, the online platform shall reimburse the recipient for any fees and other reasonable expenses that the recipient has paid or is to pay in relation to the dispute settlement. If the body decides the dispute in favour of the online platform, the recipient shall not be required to reimburse any fees or other expenses that the online platform paid or is to pay in relation to the dispute settlement.

3.   If the body decides the dispute in favour of the recipient of the service , individuals or entities mandated under Article 68 that have submitted notices , the online platform shall reimburse the recipient for any fees and other reasonable expenses that the recipient or individuals or entities that have submitted notices have paid or are to pay in relation to the dispute settlement. If the body decides the dispute in favour of the online platform, and the body does not find that the recipient acted in bad faith in the dispute, the recipient or the individuals or entities that have submitted notices shall not be required to reimburse any fees or other expenses that the online platform paid or is to pay in relation to the dispute settlement.

Amendment 242

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 — paragraph 3 — subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The fees charged by the body for the dispute settlement shall be reasonable and shall in any event not exceed the costs thereof.

The fees charged by the body for the dispute settlement shall be reasonable and shall in any event not exceed the costs thereof for online platforms . Out-of-court dispute settlement procedures shall be free of charge or available at a nominal fee for the recipient of the service.

Amendment 243

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 — paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5.   Digital Services Coordinators shall notify to the Commission the out-of-court dispute settlement bodies that they have certified in accordance with paragraph 2, including where applicable the specifications referred to in the second subparagraph of that paragraph. The Commission shall publish a list of those bodies, including those specifications, on a dedicated website, and keep it updated.

5.   Digital Services Coordinators shall notify to the Commission the out-of-court dispute settlement bodies that they have certified in accordance with paragraph 2, including where applicable the specifications referred to in the second subparagraph of that paragraph as well as out-of-court dispute settlement bodies whose status has been revoked . The Commission shall publish a list of those bodies, including those specifications, on a dedicated website, and keep it updated.

Amendment 244

Proposal for a regulation

Article 19 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   Online platforms shall take the necessary technical and organisational measures to ensure that notices submitted by trusted flaggers through the mechanisms referred to in Article 14, are processed and decided upon with priority and without delay .

1.   Online platforms shall take the necessary technical and organisational measures to ensure that notices submitted by trusted flaggers , acting within their designated area of expertise, through the mechanisms referred to in Article 14, are processed and decided upon with priority and expeditiously, taking into account due process .

Amendment 245

Proposal for a regulation

Article 19 — paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1a.     Online platforms shall take the necessary technical and organisational measures to ensure that trusted flaggers can issue correction notices of incorrect removal, restriction or disabling access to content, or of suspensions or terminations of accounts, and that those notices to restore information are processed and decided upon with priority and without delay.

Amendment 246

Proposal for a regulation

Article 19 — paragraph 2 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   The status of trusted flaggers under this Regulation shall be awarded, upon application by any entities , by the Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State in which the applicant is established, where the applicant has demonstrated to meet all of the following conditions:

2.   The status of trusted flaggers under this Regulation shall be awarded, upon application by any entity , by the Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State in which the applicant is established, where the applicant has demonstrated to meet all of the following conditions:

Amendment 247

Proposal for a regulation

Article 19 — paragraph 2 — point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c)

it carries out its activities for the purposes of submitting notices in a timely, diligent and objective manner.

(c)

it carries out its activities for the purposes of submitting notices in an accurate and objective manner.

Amendment 248

Proposal for a regulation

Article 19 — paragraph 2 — point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ca)

it has a transparent funding structure, including publishing the sources and amounts of all revenue annually;

Amendment 249

Proposal for a regulation

Article 19 — paragraph 2 — point c b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(cb)

it publishes, at least once a year, clear, easily comprehensible, detailed and standardised reports on all notices submitted in accordance with Article 14 during the relevant period. The report shall list:

notices categorised by the identity of the provider of hosting services;

the type of content notified;

the specific legal provisions allegedly breached by the content notified;

the action taken by the provider;

any potential conflicts of interest and sources of funding, and an explanation of the procedures in place to ensure that the trusted flagger retains its independence.

 

The reports referred to in point (cb) shall be sent to the Commission which shall make them publicly available.

Amendment 250

Proposal for a regulation

Article 19 — paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.   Digital Services Coordinators shall communicate to the Commission and the Board the names, addresses and electronic mail addresses of the entities to which they have awarded the status of the trusted flagger in accordance with paragraph 2.

3.    Digital Services Coordinators shall award the trusted flagger status for a period of two years, upon which the status may be renewed where the trusted flagger concerned continues to meet the requirements of this Regulation. The Digital Services Coordinators shall communicate to the Commission and the Board the names, addresses and electronic mail addresses of the entities to which they have awarded the status of the trusted flagger in accordance with paragraph 2 or have been revoked in accordance with paragraph 6 . The Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State of establishment of the platform shall engage in dialogue with platforms and stakeholders for maintaining the accuracy and efficacy of a trusted flagger system.

Amendment 251

Proposal for a regulation

Article 19 — paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4.   The Commission shall publish the information referred to in paragraph 3 in a publicly available database and keep the database updated.

4.   The Commission shall publish the information referred to in paragraph 3 in a publicly available database in an easily accessible and machine-readable format and keep the database updated.

Amendment 252

Proposal for a regulation

Article 19 — paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5.   Where an online platform has information indicating that a trusted flagger submitted a significant number of insufficiently precise or inadequately substantiated notices through the mechanisms referred to in Article 14, including information gathered in connection to the processing of complaints through the internal complaint-handling systems referred to in Article 17(3), it shall communicate that information to the Digital Services Coordinator that awarded the status of trusted flagger to the entity concerned, providing the necessary explanations and supporting documents.

5.   Where an online platform has information indicating that a trusted flagger submitted a significant number of insufficiently precise , inaccurate or inadequately substantiated notices through the mechanisms referred to in Article 14, including information gathered in connection to the processing of complaints through the internal complaint-handling systems referred to in Article 17(3), it shall communicate that information to the Digital Services Coordinator that awarded the status of trusted flagger to the entity concerned, providing the necessary explanations and supporting documents. Upon receiving the information from the online platforms and if the Digital Services Coordinator considers that there are legitimate reasons to open an investigation, the status of trusted flagger shall be suspended during the period of the investigation.

Amendment 253

Proposal for a regulation

Article 19 — paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6.   The Digital Services Coordinator that awarded the status of trusted flagger to an entity shall revoke that status if it determines, following an investigation either on its own initiative or on the basis information received by third parties, including the information provided by an online platform pursuant to paragraph 5, that the entity no longer meets the conditions set out in paragraph 2. Before revoking that status, the Digital Services Coordinator shall afford the entity an opportunity to react to the findings of its investigation and its intention to revoke the entity’s status as trusted flagger

6.   The Digital Services Coordinator that awarded the status of trusted flagger to an entity shall revoke that status if it determines, following an investigation either on its own initiative or on the basis information received from third parties, including the information provided by an online platform pursuant to paragraph 5 , carried out without undue delay , that the entity no longer meets the conditions set out in paragraph 2. Before revoking that status, the Digital Services Coordinator shall afford the entity an opportunity to react to the findings of its investigation and its intention to revoke the entity’s status as trusted flagger.

Amendment 254

Proposal for a regulation

Article 19 — paragraph 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7.   The Commission, after consulting the Board, may issue guidance to assist online platforms and Digital Services Coordinators in the application of paragraphs 5 and 6.

7.   The Commission, after consulting the Board, shall issue guidance to assist online platforms and Digital Services Coordinators in the application of paragraphs 2, 5 and 6.

Amendment 255

Proposal for a regulation

Article 19 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 19 a

 

Accessibility requirements for online platforms

 

1.     Providers of online platforms which offer services in the Union shall ensure that they design and provide services in accordance with the accessibility requirements set out in Section III, Section IV, Section VI, and Section VII of Annex I of Directive (EU) 2019/882.

 

2.     Providers of online platforms shall prepare the necessary information in accordance with Annex V of Directive (EU) 2019/882 and shall explain how the services meet the applicable accessibility requirements. The information shall be made available to the public in an accessible manner for persons with disabilities. Providers of online platforms shall keep that information for as long as the service is in operation.

 

3.     Providers of online platforms shall ensure that information, forms and measures provided pursuant to this Regulation are made available in a manner that they are easy to find, easy to understand, and accessible to persons with disabilities.

 

4.     Providers of online platforms which offer services in the Union shall ensure that procedures are in place so that the provision of services remains in conformity with the applicable accessibility requirements. Changes in the characteristics of the provision of the service, changes in applicable accessibility requirements and changes in the harmonised standards or in technical specifications by reference to which a service is declared to meet the accessibility requirements shall be adequately taken into account by the provider of intermediary services.

 

5.     In the case of non-conformity, providers of online platforms shall take the corrective measures necessary to bring the service into conformity with the applicable accessibility requirements.

 

6.     They shall cooperate with that authority, at the request of that authority, on any action taken to bring the service into compliance with those requirements.

 

7.     Online platforms which are in conformity with harmonised standards or parts thereof derived from Directive (EU) 2019/882 the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be presumed to be in conformity with the accessibility requirements of this Regulation in so far as those standards or parts thereof cover those requirements.

 

8.     Online platforms which are in conformity with the technical specifications or parts thereof adopted for the Directive (EU) 2019/882 shall be presumed to be in conformity with the accessibility requirements of this Regulation in so far as those technical specifications or parts thereof cover those requirements.

Amendment 256

Proposal for a regulation

Article 20 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   Online platforms shall suspend, for a reasonable period of time and after having issued a prior warning, the provision of their services to recipients of the service that frequently provide manifestly illegal content.

1.   Online platforms shall be entitled to suspend, for a reasonable period of time and after having issued a prior warning, the provision of their services to recipients of the service that frequently provide illegal content, for which the illegality can be established without conducting a legal or factual examination or for which they have received two or more orders to act regarding illegal content in the previous 12 months, unless those orders were later overturned .

Amendment 257

Proposal for a regulation

Article 20 — paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   Online platforms shall suspend, for a reasonable period of time and after having issued a prior warning, the processing of notices and complaints submitted through the notice and action mechanisms and internal complaints-handling systems referred to in Articles 14 and 17, respectively, by individuals or entities or by complainants that frequently submit notices or complaints that are manifestly unfounded.

2.   Online platforms shall be entitled to suspend, for a reasonable period of time and after having issued a prior warning, the processing of notices and complaints submitted through the notice and action mechanisms and internal complaints-handling systems referred to in Articles 14 and 17, respectively, by individuals or entities or by complainants that repeatedly submit notices or complaints that are manifestly unfounded.

Amendment 258

Proposal for a regulation

Article 20 — paragraph 3 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.   Online platforms shall assess, on a case-by-case basis and in a timely, diligent and objective manner, whether a recipient, individual, entity or complainant engages in the misuse referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances apparent from the information available to the online platform. Those circumstances shall include at least the following:

3.    When deciding on the suspension, providers of online platforms shall assess, on a case-by-case basis and in a timely, diligent and objective manner, whether a recipient, individual, entity or complainant engages in the misuse referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances apparent from the information available to the provider of the online platform. Those circumstances shall include at least the following:

Amendment 259

Proposal for a regulation

Article 20 — paragraph 3 — point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a)

the absolute numbers of items of manifestly illegal content or manifestly unfounded notices or complaints, submitted in the past year;

(a)

the absolute numbers of items of illegal content or manifestly unfounded notices or complaints, submitted in the past year;

Amendment 260

Proposal for a regulation

Article 20 — paragraph 3 — point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d)

the intention of the recipient, individual, entity or complainant.

(d)

where identifiable the intention of the recipient, individual, entity or complainant;

Amendment 261

Proposal for a regulation

Article 20 — paragraph 3 — point d a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(da)

whether a notice was submitted by an individual user or by an entity or persons with specific expertise related to the content in question or following the use of an automated content recognition system.

Amendment 262

Proposal for a regulation

Article 20 — paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

3a.     Suspensions referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 may be declared permanent where:

(a)

there are compelling reasons of law or public policy, including ongoing criminal investigations;

(b)

the items removed were components of high-volume campaigns to deceive users or manipulate platform content moderation efforts;

(c)

a trader has repeatedly offered goods and services that do not comply with Union or national law;

(d)

the items removed were related to serious crimes.

Amendment 263

Proposal for a regulation

Article 20 — paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4.   Online platforms shall set out, in a clear and detailed manner, their policy in respect of the misuse referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 in their terms and conditions, including as regards the facts and circumstances that they take into account when assessing whether certain behaviour constitutes misuse and the duration of the suspension.

4.    Providers of online platforms shall set out, in a clear , user-friendly, and detailed manner with due regard to their obligations under Article 12(2) their policy in respect of the misuse referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 in their terms and conditions, including examples of the facts and circumstances that they take into account when assessing whether certain behaviour constitutes misuse and the duration of the suspension.

Amendment 264

Proposal for a regulation

Article 22 — paragraph 1 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.    Where an online platform allows consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders , it shall ensure that traders can only use its services to promote messages on or to offer products or services to consumers located in the Union if, prior to the use of its services , the online platform has obtained the following information:

1.   Online platforms allowing consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders shall ensure that traders can only use their services to promote messages on or to offer products or services to consumers located in the Union if, prior to the use of their services for those purposes, they have been provided with the following information:

Amendment 265

Proposal for a regulation

Article 22 — paragraph 1 — point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d)

the name, address, telephone number and electronic mail address of the economic operator, within the meaning of Article 3(13) and Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 of the European Parliament and the Council (51) or any relevant act of Union law;

(d)

the name, address, telephone number and electronic mail address of the economic operator, within the meaning of Article 3(13) and Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 of the European Parliament and the Council (51) or any relevant act of Union law , including in the area of product safety ;

Amendment 266

Proposal for a regulation

Article 22 — paragraph 1 — point f

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(f)

a self-certification by the trader committing to only offer products or services that comply with the applicable rules of Union law.

(f)

a self-certification by the trader committing to only offer products or services that comply with the applicable rules of Union law and where applicable confirming that all products have been checked against available databases, such as the Union Rapid Alert System for dangerous non-food products (RAPEX);

Amendment 267

Proposal for a regulation

Article 22 — paragraph 1 — point f a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(fa)

the type of products or services the trader intends to offer on the online platform.

Amendment 268

Proposal for a regulation

Article 22 — paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   The online platform shall, upon receiving that information , make reasonable efforts to assess whether the information referred to in points (a) , (d) and (e) of paragraph 1 is reliable through the use of any freely accessible official online database or online interface made available by a Member States or the Union or through requests to the trader to provide supporting documents from reliable sources.

2.   The online platform allowing consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders shall, upon receiving that information before allowing the display of the product or service on its online interface, and until the end of the contractual relationship, make best efforts to assess whether the information referred to in points (a) to (fa) of paragraph 1 is reliable and complete. The online platform shall make best efforts to check the information provided by the trader through the use of any freely accessible official online database or online interface made available by an authorised administrator or a Member States or the Union or through direct requests to the trader to provide supporting documents from reliable sources.

 

No later than one year after the entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission shall publish the list of online databases and online interfaces mentioned in the paragraph above and keep it up-to-date. The obligations for online platforms referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply with regard to new and existing traders.

Amendment 269

Proposal for a regulation

Article 22 — paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2a.     The online platform shall make best efforts to identify and prevent the dissemination, by traders using its service, of offers for products or services which do not comply with Union or national law through measures such as random checks on the products and services offered to consumers in addition to the obligations referred to in paragraph 1 and 2 of this Article.

Amendment 270

Proposal for a regulation

Article 22 — paragraph 3 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.   Where the online platform obtains indications that any item of information referred to in paragraph 1 obtained from the trader concerned is inaccurate or incomplete, that platform shall request the trader to correct the information in so far as necessary to ensure that all information is accurate and complete, without delay or within the time period set by Union and national law.

3.   Where the online platform obtains sufficient indications or has reasons to believe that any item of information referred to in paragraph 1 obtained from the trader concerned is inaccurate or incomplete, that platform shall request the trader to correct the information in so far as necessary to ensure that all information is accurate and complete, without delay or within the time period set by Union and national law.

Amendment 271

Proposal for a regulation

Article 22 — paragraph 3 — subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Where the trader fails to correct or complete that information, the online platform shall suspend the provision of its service to the trader until the request is complied with.

Where the trader fails to correct or complete that information, the online platform shall swiftly suspend the provision of its service to the trader in relation to the offering of products or services to consumers located in the Union until the request is fully complied with.

Amendment 272

Proposal for a regulation

Article 22 — paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

3a.     If an online platform rejects an application for services or suspends services to a trader, the trader shall have recourse to the mechanisms under Article 17 and Article 43 of this Regulation.

Amendment 273

Proposal for a regulation

Article 22 — paragraph 3 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

3b.     Online platforms allowing consumers to conclude contracts with traders shall ensure that the identity, such as the trademark or logo, of the business user providing content, goods or services is clearly visible alongside the content, goods or services offered. For this purpose, the online platform shall establish a standardised interface for business users.

Amendment 274

Proposal for a regulation

Article 22 — paragraph 3 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

3c.     Traders shall be solely liable for the accuracy of the information provided and shall inform without delay the online platform of any changes to the information provided.

Amendment 275

Proposal for a regulation

Article 22 — paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4.   The online platform shall store the information obtained pursuant to paragraph 1 and 2 in a secure manner for the duration of their contractual relationship with the trader concerned. They shall subsequently delete the information.

4.   The online platform shall store the information obtained pursuant to paragraph 1 and 2 in a secure manner for the duration of their contractual relationship with the trader concerned. They shall subsequently delete the information no later than six months after the final conclusion of a distance contract .

Amendment 276

Proposal for a regulation

Article 22 — paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6.   The online platform shall make the information referred to in points (a), (d), (e) and (f) of paragraph 1 available to the recipients of the service, in a clear, easily accessible and comprehensible manner.

6.   The online platform shall make the information referred to in points (a), (d), (e) , (f), and (fa) of paragraph 1 easily accessible to the recipients of the service,, in a clear, easily accessible and comprehensible manner in accordance with the accessibility requirements of Annex I to Directive (EU) 2019/882 .

Amendment 277

Proposal for a regulation

Article 22 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 22a

 

Obligation to inform consumers and authorities about illegal products and services

 

1.     Where an online platforms allowing consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders becomes aware, irrespective of the means used to, that a product or a service offered by a trader on the interface of that platform is illegal with regard to applicable requirements in Union or national law, it shall:

(a)

remove the illegal product or service from its interface expeditiously and, where appropriate, inform the relevant authorities, such as the market surveillance authority or the custom authority of the decision taken;

(b)

where the online platform has the contact details of the recipient of the services, inform those recipients of the service that had acquired such product or service about the illegality, the identity of the trader and options for seeking redress;

(c)

compile and make publicly available through application programming interfaces a repository containing information about illegal products and services removed from its platform in the past twelve months along with information about the concerned trader and options for seeking redress.

 

2.     Online platforms allowing consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders shall maintain an internal database of illegal products and services removed and/or recipients suspended pursuant to Article 20.

Amendment 278

Proposal for a regulation

Article 23 — paragraph 1 — point a a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(aa)

the number of complaints received through the internal complaint-handling system referred to in Article 17, the basis for those complaints, decisions taken in respect of those complaints, the average and median time needed for taking those decisions and the number of instances where those decisions were reversed;

Amendment 279

Proposal for a regulation

Article 23 — paragraph 1 — point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b)

the number of suspensions imposed pursuant to Article 20, distinguishing between suspensions enacted for the provision of manifestly illegal content, the submission of manifestly unfounded notices and the submission of manifestly unfounded complaints;

(b)

the number of suspensions imposed pursuant to Article 20, distinguishing between suspensions enacted for the provision of illegal content, the submission of manifestly unfounded notices and the submission of manifestly unfounded complaints;

Amendment 280

Proposal for a regulation

Article 23 — paragraph 1 — point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ca)

the number of advertisements that were removed, labelled or disabled by the online platform and justification of the decisions.

Amendment 281

Proposal for a regulation

Article 23 — paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   Online platforms shall publish, at least once every six months, information on the average monthly active recipients of the service in each Member State, calculated as an average over the period of the past six months, in accordance with the methodology laid down in the delegated acts adopted pursuant to Article 25(2).

2.   Online platforms shall publish, at least once every twelve months, information on the average monthly active recipients of the service in each Member State, calculated as an average over the period of the past six months, in accordance with the methodology laid down in the delegated acts adopted pursuant to Article 25(2).

Amendment 282

Proposal for a regulation

Article 23 — paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2a.     Member States shall refrain from imposing additional transparency reporting obligations on the online platforms, other than specific requests in connection with the exercise of their supervisory powers.

Amendment 283

Proposal for a regulation

Article 23 — paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4.   The Commission may adopt implementing acts to lay down templates concerning the form, content and other details of reports pursuant to paragraph 1.

4.   The Commission shall adopt implementing acts to establish a set of key performance indicators and lay down templates concerning the form, content and other details of reports pursuant to paragraph 1.

Amendment 284

Proposal for a regulation

Article 24 — paragraph 1 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Online platforms that display advertising on their online interfaces shall ensure that the recipients of the service can identify, for each specific advertisement displayed to each individual recipient, in a clear and unambiguous manner and in real time:

1.    Online platforms that display advertising on their online interfaces shall ensure that the recipients of the service can identify, for each specific advertisement displayed to each individual recipient, in a clear , concise, and unambiguous manner and in real time:

Amendment 285

Proposal for a regulation

Article 24 — paragraph 1 — point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a)

that the information displayed is an advertisement;

(a)

that the information displayed on the interface or parts thereof is an online advertisement , including through prominent and harmonised marking ;

Amendment 286

Proposal for a regulation

Article 24 — paragraph 1 — point b a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ba)

the natural or legal person who finances the advertisement where this person is different from the natural or legal person referred to in point (b);

Amendment 287

Proposal for a regulation

Article 24 — paragraph 1 — point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c)

meaningful information about the main parameters used to determine the recipient to whom the advertisement is displayed.

(c)

clear, meaningful , and uniform information about the parameters used to determine the recipient to whom the advertisement is displayed , and where applicable about how to change those parameters .

Amendment 499

Proposal for a regulation

Article 24 — paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1a.     Online platforms shall ensure that recipients of services can easily make an informed choice on whether to consent, as defined in Article 4 (11) and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, in processing their personal data for the purposes of advertising by providing them with meaningful information, including information about how their data will be monetised. Online platforms shall ensure that refusing consent shall be no more difficult or time-consuming to the recipient than giving consent. In the event that recipients refuse to consent, or have withdrawn consent, recipients shall be given other fair and reasonable options to access the online platform.

Amendment 500

Proposal for a regulation

Article 24 — paragraph 1 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1b.     Targeting or amplification techniques that process, reveal or infer personal data of minors or personal data referred to in Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 for the purpose of displaying advertisements are prohibited.

Amendment 290

Proposal for a regulation

Article 24 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 24a

 

Recommender system transparency

 

1.     Online platforms shall set out in their terms and conditions and via a designated online resource that can be directly reached and easily found from the online platform’s online interface when content is recommended, in a clear, accessible and easily comprehensible manner the main parameters used in their recommender systems, as well as any options for the recipient of the service to modify or influence those main parameters that they have made available.

 

2.     The main parameters referred to in paragraph 1 shall include, at a minimum:

(a)

the main criteria used by the relevant system which individually or collectively are most significant in determining recommendations;

(b)

the relative importance of those parameters;

(c)

what objectives the relevant system has been optimised for; and

(d)

if applicable, an explanation of the role that the behaviour of the recipients of the service plays in how the relevant system produces its outputs.

 

The requirements set out in paragraph 2 shall be without prejudice to rules on protection of trade secrets and intellectual property rights.

 

3.     Where several options are available pursuant to paragraph 1, online platforms shall provide a clear and easily accessible function on their online interface allowing the recipient of the service to select and to modify at any time their preferred option for each of the recommender systems that determines the relative order of information presented to them.

Amendment 291

Proposal for a regulation

Article 24 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 24b

 

Additional obligations for platforms primarily used for the dissemination of user-generated pornographic content

 

Where an online platform is primarily used for the dissemination of user generated pornographic content, the platform shall take the necessary technical and organisational measures to ensure:

(a)

that users who disseminate content have verified themselves through a double opt-in e-mail and cell phone registration;

(b)

professional human content moderation, trained to identify image-based sexual abuse, including content having a high probability of being illegal;

(c)

the accessibility of a qualified notification procedure in the form that, additionally to the mechanism referred to in Article 14, individuals may notify the platform with the claim that image material depicting them or purporting to be depicting them is being disseminated without their consent and supply the platform with prima facie evidence of their physical identity; content notified through this procedure is to be suspended without undue delay.

Amendment 292

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   This Section shall apply to online platforms which provide their services to a number of average monthly active recipients of the service in the Union equal to or higher than 45 million, calculated in accordance with the methodology set out in the delegated acts referred to in paragraph 3.

1.   This Section shall apply to online platforms which:

 

 

(a)

provide for at least four consecutive months their services to a number of average monthly active recipients of the service in the Union equal to or higher than 45 million, calculated in accordance with the methodology set out in the delegated acts referred to in paragraph 3. Such a methodology shall take into account, in particular:

(i)

the number of active recipients shall be based on each service individually;

(ii)

active recipients connected on multiple devices are counted only once;

(iii)

indirect use of service, via a third party or linking, shall not be counted;

(iv)

where an online platform is hosted by another provider of intermediary services, that the active recipients are assigned solely to the online platform closest to the recipient;

(v)

that automated interactions, accounts or data scans by a non-human (‘bots’) are not included.

Amendment 293

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 — paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.   The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 69, after consulting the Board, to lay down a specific methodology for calculating the number of average monthly active recipients of the service in the Union, for the purposes of paragraph 1. The methodology shall specify, in particular, how to determine the Union’s population and criteria to determine the average monthly active recipients of the service in the Union, taking into account different accessibility features.

3.   The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 69, after consulting the Board, to lay down a specific methodology for calculating the number of average monthly active recipients of the service in the Union, for the purposes of paragraph 1 (a) . The methodology shall specify, in particular, how to determine the Union’s population and criteria to determine the average monthly active recipients of the service in the Union, taking into account different accessibility features.

Amendment 294

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 — paragraph 1 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   Very large online platforms shall identify, analyse and assess, from the date of application referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 25(4), at least once a year thereafter, any significant systemic risks stemming from the functioning and use made of their services in the Union. This risk assessment shall be specific to their services and shall include the following systemic risks:

1.   Very large online platforms shall effectively and diligently identify, analyse and assess, from the date of application referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 25(4), at least once a year thereafter, and in any event before launching new services, the probability and severity of any significant systemic risks stemming from , the design, algorithmic systems, intrinsic characteristics, functioning and use made of their services in the Union . The risk assessment shall take into account risks per Member State in which services are offered and in the Union as a whole, in particular to a specific language or region . This risk assessment shall be specific to their services and activities, including technology design, business-model choices, and shall include the following systemic risks:

Amendment 295

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 — paragraph 1 — point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a)

the dissemination of illegal content through their services;

(a)

the dissemination of illegal content through their services or content that is in breach with their terms and conditions ;

Amendment 296

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 — paragraph 1 — point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b)

any negative effects for the exercise of the fundamental rights to respect for private and family life, freedom of expression and information, the prohibition of discrimination and the rights of the child, as enshrined in Articles 7 , 11, 21 and 24 of the Charter respectively;

(b)

any actual and foreseeable negative effects for the exercise of the fundamental rights , including for consumer protection, to respect for human dignity, private and family life, the protection of personal data and the freedom of expression and information, as well as to the freedom and the pluralism of the media, the prohibition of discrimination , the right to gender equality, and the rights of the child, as enshrined in Articles 1, 7, 8 , 11, 21 , 23, 24 and 38 of the Charter respectively;

Amendment 297

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 — paragraph 1 — point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c)

intentional manipulation of their service, including by means of inauthentic use or automated exploitation of the service, with an actual or foreseeable negative effect on the protection of public health, minors, civic discourse, or actual or foreseeable effects related to electoral processes and public security.

(c)

any malfunctioning or intentional manipulation of their service, including by means of inauthentic use or automated exploitation of the service or risks inherent to the intended operation of the service , including the amplification of illegal content, of content that is in breach with their terms and conditions or any other content with an actual or foreseeable negative effect on the protection of minors and of other vulnerable groups of recipients of the service , on democratic values, media freedom, freedom of expression and civic discourse, or actual or foreseeable effects related to electoral processes and public security;

Amendment 298

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 — paragraph 1 — point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ca)

any actual and foreseeable negative effects on the protection of public health as well as behavioural addictions or other serious negative consequences to the person's physical, mental, social and financial well-being.

Amendment 299

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 — paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   When conducting risk assessments, very large online platforms shall take into account, in particular, how their content moderation systems, recommender systems and systems for selecting and displaying advertisement influence any of the systemic risks referred to in paragraph 1, including the potentially rapid and wide dissemination of illegal content and of information that is incompatible with their terms and conditions.

2.   When conducting risk assessments, very large online platforms shall take into account, in particular, whether and how their content moderation systems, terms and conditions, community standards, algorithmic systems, recommender systems and systems for selecting and displaying advertisement , as well as the underlying data collection, processing and profiling, influence any of the systemic risks referred to in paragraph 1, including the potentially rapid and wide dissemination of illegal content and of information that is incompatible with their terms and conditions.

Amendment 300

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 — paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2a.     When conducting risk assessments, very large online platforms shall consult, where appropriate, representatives of the recipients of the service, representatives of groups potentially impacted by their services, independent experts and civil society organisations. Their involvement shall be tailored to the specific systemic risks that the very large online platform aim to assess.

Amendment 301

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 — paragraph 2 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2b.     The supporting documents of the risk assessment shall be communicated to the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment and to the Commission.

Amendment 302

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 — paragraph 2 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2c.     The obligations referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall by no means lead to a general monitoring obligation.

Amendment 303

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 — paragraph 1 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   Very large online platforms shall put in place reasonable, proportionate and effective mitigation measures, tailored to the specific systemic risks identified pursuant to Article 26. Such measures may include, where applicable:

1.   Very large online platforms shall put in place reasonable , transparent , proportionate and effective mitigation measures, tailored to the specific systemic risks identified pursuant to Article 26. Such measures may include, where applicable:

Amendment 304

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 — paragraph 1 — point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a)

adapting content moderation or recommender systems, their decision-making processes, the features or functioning of their services, or their terms and conditions;

(a)

adapting content moderation , algorithmic systems, or recommender systems and online interfaces , their decision-making processes , the design , the features or functioning of their services, their advertising model or their terms and conditions;

Amendment 305

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 — paragraph 1 — point a a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(aa)

ensuring appropriate resources to deal with notices and internal complaints, including appropriate technical and operational measures or capacities;

Amendment 306

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 — paragraph 1 — point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b)

targeted measures aimed at limiting the display of advertisements in association with the service they provide;

(b)

targeted measures aimed at limiting the display of advertisements in association with the service they provide , or the alternative placement and display of public service advertisements or other related factual information ;

Amendment 307

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 — paragraph 1 — point b a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ba)

where relevant, targeted measures aimed at adapting online interfaces and features to protect minors;

Amendment 308

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 — paragraph 1 — point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c)

reinforcing the internal processes or supervision of any of their activities in particular as regards detection of systemic risk;

(c)

reinforcing the internal processes , and resources, testing, documentation, or supervision of any of their activities in particular as regards detection of systemic risk;

Amendment 309

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 — paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1a.     Very large online platforms shall, where appropriate, design their risk mitigation measures with the involvement of representatives of the recipients of the service, independent experts and civil society organisations. Where no such involvement is foreseen, this shall be made clear in the transparency report referred to in Article 33.

Amendment 310

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 — paragraph 1 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1b.     Very large online platforms shall provide a detailed list of the risk mitigation measures taken and their justification to the independent auditors in order to prepare the audit report referred to in Article 28.

Amendment 311

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 — paragraph 1 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1c.     The Commission shall evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of mitigating measures undertaken by very large online platforms referred to in Article 27(1) and where necessary, may issue recommendations.

Amendment 312

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 — paragraph 2 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   The Board, in cooperation with the Commission, shall publish comprehensive reports, once a year , which shall include the following:

2.   The Board, in cooperation with the Commission, shall publish comprehensive reports, once a year . The reports shall include the following:

Amendment 313

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 — paragraph 2 — point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a)

identification and assessment of the most prominent and recurrent systemic risks reported by very large online platforms or identified through other information sources, in particular those provided in compliance with Article 31 and 33;

(a)

identification and assessment of the most prominent and recurrent systemic risks reported by very large online platforms or identified through other information sources, in particular those provided in compliance with Articles 30, 31 and 33;

Amendment 314

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 — paragraph 2 — subparagraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

The reports shall be presented per Member State in which the systemic risks occurred and in the Union as a whole. The reports shall be published in all the official languages of the Member States of the Union.

Amendment 315

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 — paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.   The Commission, in cooperation with the Digital Services Coordinators, may issue general guidelines on the application of paragraph 1 in relation to specific risks, in particular to present best practices and recommend possible measures, having due regard to the possible consequences of the measures on fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of all parties involved. When preparing those guidelines the Commission shall organise public consultations.

3.   The Commission, in cooperation with the Digital Services Coordinators, and following public consultation shall issue general guidelines on the application of paragraph 1 in relation to specific risks, in particular to present best practices and recommend possible measures, having due regard to the possible consequences of the measures on fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of all parties involved.

Amendment 316

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 — paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

3a.     The requirement to put in place mitigation measures shall not lead to a general monitoring obligation or active fact-finding obligations.

Amendment 317

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 — paragraph 1 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   Very large online platforms shall be subject, at their own expense and at least once a year, to audits to assess compliance with the following:

1.   Very large online platforms shall be subject, at their own expense and at least once a year, to independent audits to assess compliance with the following:

Amendment 318

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 — paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1a.     Very large online platforms shall ensure auditors have access to all relevant data necessary to perform the audit properly.

Amendment 319

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 — paragraph 2 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   Audits performed pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be performed by organisations which:

2.   Audits performed pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be performed by organisations which having been recognised and vetted by the Commission and which :

Amendment 320

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 — paragraph 2 — point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a)

are independent from the very large online platform concerned;

(a)

are legally and financially independent from , and do not have conflicts of interest with the very large online platform concerned and other very large online platforms ;

Amendment 321

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 — paragraph 2 — point a a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(aa)

auditors and their employees have not provided any other service to the very large online platform audited 12 months before the audit and commit not to work for the very large online platform audited or a professional organisation or business association of which the platform is a member for 12 months after their position in the auditing organisation has ended;

Amendment 322

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 — paragraph 3 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.   The organisations that perform the audits shall establish an audit report for each audit. The report shall be in writing and include at least the following:

3.   The organisations that perform the audits shall establish an audit report for each audit subject as referred to in paragraph 1 . The report shall be in writing and include at least the following:

Amendment 323

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 — paragraph 3 — point b a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ba)

a declaration of interests;

Amendment 324

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 — paragraph 3 — point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d)

a description of the main findings drawn from the audit;

(d)

a description of the main findings drawn from the audit and a summary of the main findings ;

Amendment 325

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 — paragraph 3 — point d a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(da)

a description of the third parties consulted as part of the audit;

Amendment 326

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 — paragraph 3 — point f a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(fa)

a description of specific elements that could not be audited, and an explanation of why these could not be audited;

Amendment 327

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 — paragraph 3 — point f b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(fb)

where the audit opinion could not reach a conclusion for specific elements within the scope of the audit, a statement of reasons for the failure to reach such conclusion.

Amendment 328

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 — paragraph 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

4a.     The Commission shall publish and regularly update a list of vetted organisations.

Amendment 329

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 — paragraph 4 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

4b.     Where a very large online platform receives a positive audit report, it shall be entitled to request from the Commission a seal of excellence.

Amendment 330

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   Very large online platforms that use recommender systems shall set out in their terms and conditions, in a clear, accessible and easily comprehensible manner, the main parameters used in their recommender systems, as well as any options for the recipients of the service to modify or influence those main parameters that they may have made available, including at least one option which is not based on profiling, within the meaning of Article 4 (4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

1.    In addition to the requirements set out in Article 24a, very large online platforms that use recommender systems shall provide at least one recommender system which is not based on profiling, within the meaning of Article 4 (4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 , as well as an easily accessible functionality on their online interface allowing the recipient of the service to select and to modify at any time their preferred option for each of the recommender systems that determines the relative order of information presented to them .

Amendment 331

Proposal for a regulation

Article 29 — paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.     Where several options are available pursuant to paragraph 1, very large online platforms shall provide an easily accessible functionality on their online interface allowing the recipient of the service to select and to modify at any time their preferred option for each of the recommender systems that determines the relative order of information presented to them.

deleted

Amendment 332

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   Very large online platforms that display advertising on their online interfaces shall compile and make publicly available through application programming interfaces a repository containing the information referred to in paragraph 2, until one year after the advertisement was displayed for the last time on their online interfaces. They shall ensure that the repository does not contain any personal data of the recipients of the service to whom the advertisement was or could have been displayed.

1.   Very large online platforms that display advertising on their online interfaces shall compile and make publicly available and searchable through easy to access, efficient and reliable tools through application programming interfaces a repository containing the information referred to in paragraph 2, until one year after the advertisement was displayed for the last time on their online interfaces. They shall ensure that multicriterion queries can be performed per advertiser and per all data points present in the advertisement, the target of the advertisement, and the audience the advertiser wishes to reach. They shall ensure that the repository does not contain any personal data of the recipients of the service to whom the advertisement was or could have been displayed and shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the information is accurate and complete .

Amendment 333

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 — paragraph 2 — point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a)

the content of the advertisement;

(a)

the content of the advertisement , including the name of the product, service or brand and the object of the advertisement ;

Amendment 334

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 — paragraph 2 — point b a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ba)

the natural or legal person who paid for the advertisement, where that person is different from the one referred to in point (b);

Amendment 335

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 — paragraph 2 — point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d)

whether the advertisement was intended to be displayed specifically to one or more particular groups of recipients of the service and if so, the main parameters used for that purpose;

(d)

whether the advertisement was intended to be displayed specifically to one or more particular groups of recipients of the service and if so, the main parameters used for that purpose including any parameters used to exclude particular groups ;

Amendment 336

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 — paragraph 2 — point d a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(da)

where it is disclosed, a copy of the content of commercial communications published on the very large online platforms that are not marketed, sold or arranged by the very large online platform, which have through appropriate channels been declared as such to the very large online platform;

Amendment 337

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 — paragraph 2 — point e a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ea)

cases where the advertisement was removed on the basis of a notice submitted in accordance with Article 14 or an order issued pursuant to Article 8.

Amendment 338

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 — paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2a.     The Board shall, after consulting vetted researchers, publish guidelines on the structure and organisation on repositories created pursuant to paragraph 1.

Amendment 339

Proposal for a regulation

Article 30 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 30a

 

Deep fakes

 

Where a very large online platform becomes aware that a piece of content is a generated or manipulated image, audio or video content that appreciably resembles existing persons, objects, places or other entities or events and falsely appears to a person to be authentic or truthful (deep fakes), the provider shall label the content in a way that informs that the content is inauthentic and that is clearly visible for the recipient of the services.

Amendment 340

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   Very large online platforms shall provide the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment or the Commission, upon their reasoned request and within a reasonable period, specified in the request, access to data that are necessary to monitor and assess compliance with this Regulation. That Digital Services Coordinator and the Commission shall only use that data for those purposes.

1.   Very large online platforms shall provide the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment or the Commission, upon their reasoned request and within a reasonable period, and without delay specified in the request, access to data that are necessary to monitor and assess compliance with this Regulation. That Digital Services Coordinator and the Commission shall only request, access and use that data for those purposes.

Amendment 341

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 — paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1a.     The very large online platform shall be obliged to explain the design, logic and the functioning of the algorithms if requested by the Digital Service Coordinator of establishment.

Amendment 342

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 — paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   Upon a reasoned request from the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment or the Commission, very large online platforms shall, within a reasonable period, as specified in the request, provide access to data to vetted researchers who meet the requirements in paragraphs 4 of this Article, for the sole purpose of conducting research that contributes to the identification and understanding of systemic risks as set out in Article 26(1).

2.   Upon a reasoned request from the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment or the Commission, very large online platforms shall, within a reasonable period, as specified in the request, provide access to data to vetted researchers , vetted not-for-profit bodies, organisations or associations, who meet the requirements in paragraphs 4 of this Article, for the sole purpose of conducting research that contributes to the identification , mitigation and understanding of systemic risks as set out in Article 26(1) and Article 27(1) .

Amendment 343

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 — paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2a.     Vetted researchers, vetted not-for-profit bodies, organisations and associations shall have access to aggregate numbers for the total views and view rate of content prior to a removal on the basis of orders issued in accordance with Article 8 or content moderation engaged in at the provider’s own initiative and under its terms and conditions.

Amendment 344

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 — paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.   Very large online platforms shall provide access to data pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 through online databases or application programming interfaces, as appropriate.

3.   Very large online platforms shall provide access to data pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 through online databases or application programming interfaces, as appropriate , and with an easily accessible and user-friendly mechanism to search for multiple criteria .

Amendment 345

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 — paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4.   In order to be vetted, researchers shall be affiliated with academic institutions, be independent from commercial interests, have proven records of expertise in the fields related to the risks investigated or related research methodologies , and shall commit and be in a capacity to preserve the specific data security and confidentiality requirements corresponding to each request.

4.   In order to be vetted by the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment or the Commission , researchers , not-for-profit bodies, organisations or associations shall:

 

 

(a)

be affiliated with academic institutions or civil society organisations representing the public interest and meeting the requirements under Article 68;

(b)

be independent from commercial interests, including from any very large online platform;

(c)

disclose the funding financing the research;

(d)

be independent from any government, administrative or other state bodies, outside the academic institution of affiliation if public;

(e)

have proven records of expertise in the fields related to the risks investigated or related research methodologies ; and

(f)

preserve the specific data security and confidentiality requirements corresponding to each request.

Amendment 346

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 — paragraph 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

4a.     Where a very large online platform has grounds to believe that a researcher, a not-for-profit body, an organisation or association is acting outside the purpose of paragraph 2 or no longer respects the conditions of paragraph 4, it shall immediately inform the relevant authority, either the Digital Service Coordinator of establishment or the Commission, which shall decide without undue delay if access shall be withdrawn and when the access shall be restored and under what conditions.

Amendment 347

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 — paragraph 4 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

4b.     Where the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment, or the Commission have grounds to believe that a researcher, a not-for-profit body, an organisation or association is acting outside the purpose of paragraph 2 or no longer respects the conditions of paragraph 4, it shall immediately inform the very large online platform. The very large online platform shall be entitled to withdraw access to data upon receiving the information. The Digital Services Coordinator of establishment, or the Commission shall decide if and when access shall be restored and under what conditions.

Amendment 348

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 — paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5.   The Commission shall, after consulting the Board, adopt delegated acts laying down the technical conditions under which very large online platforms are to share data pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 and the purposes for which the data may be used. Those delegated acts shall lay down the specific conditions under which such sharing of data with vetted researchers can take place in compliance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679, taking into account the rights and interests of the very large online platforms and the recipients of the service concerned, including the protection of confidential information, in particular trade secrets, and maintaining the security of their service.

5.   The Commission shall, after consulting the Board , and no later than one year after entry into force of this legislation , adopt delegated acts laying down the technical conditions under which very large online platforms are to share data pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 and the purposes for which the data may be used. Those delegated acts shall lay down the specific conditions under which such sharing of data with vetted researchers or not-for-profit bodies, organisations or associations can take place in compliance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679, taking into account the rights and interests of the very large online platforms and the recipients of the service concerned, including the protection of confidential information, and maintaining the security of their service.

Amendment 349

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 — paragraph 6 — point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b)

giving access to the data will lead to significant vulnerabilities for the security of its service or the protection of confidential information , in particular trade secrets .

(b)

giving access to the data will lead to significant vulnerabilities for the security of its service or the protection of confidential information.

Amendment 350

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 — paragraph 7 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

7a.     Digital Service Coordinators and the Commission shall, once a year, report the following information:

(a)

the number of requests made to them as referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 6;

(b)

the number of such requests that have been declined or withdrawn by the Digital Service Coordinator or the Commission and the reasons for which they have been declined or withdrawn, including following a request to the Digital Service Coordinator or the Commission from a very large online platform to amend a request as referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 6.

Amendment 351

Proposal for a regulation

Article 31 — paragraph 7 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

7b.     Upon completion of their research, the vetted researchers that have been granted access to data shall publish their findings without disclosing confidential data and in compliance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

Amendment 352

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 — paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   Very large online platforms shall only designate as compliance officers persons who have the professional qualifications, knowledge, experience and ability necessary to fulfil the tasks referred to in paragraph 3. Compliance officers may either be staff members of, or fulfil those tasks on the basis of a contract with, the very large online platform concerned.

2.   Very large online platforms shall only designate persons who have the professional qualifications, knowledge, experience and ability necessary to fulfil the tasks referred to in paragraph 3 as compliance officers . Compliance officers may either be staff members of, or fulfil those tasks on the basis of a contract with, the very large online platform concerned.

Amendment 353

Proposal for a regulation

Article 32 — paragraph 3 — point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a)

cooperating with the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment and the Commission for the purpose of this Regulation;

(a)

cooperating with the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment , the Board and the Commission for the purpose of this Regulation;

Amendment 354

Proposal for a regulation

Article 33 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   Very large online platforms shall publish the reports referred to in Article 13 within six months from the date of application referred to in Article 25(4), and thereafter every six months.

1.   Very large online platforms shall publish the reports referred to in Article 13 within six months from the date of application referred to in Article 25(4), and thereafter every six months in a standardised, machine-readable and easily accessible format .

Amendment 355

Proposal for a regulation

Article 33 — paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1a.     Such reports shall include content moderation information separated and presented for each Member State in which the services are offered and for the Union as a whole. The reports shall be published in at least one of the official languages of the Member States of the Union in which services are offered.

Amendment 356

Proposal for a regulation

Article 33 — paragraph 2 — point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b)

the related risk mitigation measures identified and implemented pursuant to Article 27;

(b)

the specific mitigation measures identified and implemented pursuant to Article 27;

Amendment 357

Proposal for a regulation

Article 33 — paragraph 2 — point d a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(da)

where appropriate, information about the representatives of the recipients of the service, independent experts and civil society organisations, consulted for the risk assessment in accordance with Article 26.

Amendment 358

Proposal for a regulation

Article 33 — paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.   Where a very large online platform considers that the publication of information pursuant to paragraph 2 may result in the disclosure of confidential information of that platform or of the recipients of the service, may cause significant vulnerabilities for the security of its service, may undermine public security or may harm recipients, the platform may remove such information from the reports. In that case, that platform shall transmit the complete reports to the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment and the Commission, accompanied by a statement of the reasons for removing the information from the public reports.

3.   Where a very large online platform considers that the publication of information pursuant to paragraph 2 may result in the disclosure of confidential information of that platform or of the recipients of the service, may cause significant vulnerabilities for the security of its service, may undermine public security or may harm recipients, the platform may remove such information from the reports. In that case, that platform shall transmit the complete reports to the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment and the Commission, accompanied by a statement of the reasons for removing the information from the public reports , in compliance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 .

Amendment 359

Proposal for a regulation

Article 34 — paragraph 1 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   The Commission shall support and promote the development and implementation of voluntary industry standards set by relevant European and international standardisation bodies at least for the following:

1.   The Commission shall support and promote the development and implementation of voluntary standards set by relevant European and international standardisation bodies , in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012, at least for the following:

Amendment 360

Proposal for a regulation

Article 34 — paragraph 1 — point a a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(aa)

terms and conditions under Article 12, including as regards acceptance of and changes to those terms and conditions;

Amendment 361

Proposal for a regulation

Article 34 — paragraph 1 — point a b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ab)

information on traceability of traders under Article 22;

Amendment 362

Proposal for a regulation

Article 34 — paragraph 1 — point a c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ac)

advertising practices under Article 24 and recommender systems under Article 24a;

Amendment 363

Proposal for a regulation

Article 34 — paragraph 1 — point f a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(fa)

transparency reporting obligations pursuant to Article 13;

Amendment 364

Proposal for a regulation

Article 34 — paragraph 1 — point f b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(fb)

technical specifications to ensure that intermediary services shall be made accessible for persons with disabilities in accordance with the accessibility requirements of Directive (EU) 2019/882.

Amendment 365

Proposal for a regulation

Article 34 — paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1a.     The Commission shall support and promote the development and implementation of voluntary standards set by the relevant European and international standardisation bodies aimed at the protection of minors.

Amendment 366

Proposal for a regulation

Article 34 — paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2a.     The Commission shall be empowered to adopt implementing acts laying down common specifications for the items listed in points (a) to (fb) of paragraph 1 where the Commission has requested one or more European standardisation organisations to draft a harmonised standard and there has not been a publication of the reference to that standard in the Official Journal of the European Union within [24 months after the entry into force of this Regulation] or the request has not been accepted by any of the European standardisation organisations.

Amendment 367

Proposal for a regulation

Article 35 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   The Commission and the Board shall encourage and facilitate the drawing up of codes of conduct at Union level to contribute to the proper application of this Regulation, taking into account in particular the specific challenges of tackling different types of illegal content and systemic risks, in accordance with Union law , in particular on competition and the protection of personal data.

1.   The Commission and the Board shall encourage and facilitate the drawing up of voluntary codes of conduct at Union level to contribute to the proper application of this Regulation, taking into account in particular the specific challenges of tackling different types of illegal content and systemic risks, in accordance with Union law. Particular attention shall be given to avoiding negative effects on fair competition , data access and security, the general monitoring prohibition and the protection of privacy and personal data. The Commission and the Board shall also encourage and facilitate regular review and adaption of the Codes of conduct to ensure that they are fit for purpose.

Amendment 368

Proposal for a regulation

Article 35 — paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   Where significant systemic risk within the meaning of Article 26(1) emerge and concern several very large online platforms, the Commission may invite the very large online platforms concerned, other very large online platforms, other online platforms and other providers of intermediary services, as appropriate, as well as civil society organisations and other interested parties , to participate in the drawing up of codes of conduct, including by setting out commitments to take specific risk mitigation measures, as well as a regular reporting framework on any measures taken and their outcomes.

2.   Where significant systemic risk within the meaning of Article 26(1) emerge and concern several very large online platforms, the Commission may request the very large online platforms concerned, other very large online platforms, other online platforms and other providers of intermediary services, as appropriate, as well as relevant competent authorities, civil society organisations and other relevant stakeholders , to participate in the drawing up of codes of conduct, including by setting out commitments to take specific risk mitigation measures, as well as a regular reporting framework on any measures taken and their outcomes.

Amendment 369

Proposal for a regulation

Article 35 — paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.   When giving effect to paragraphs 1 and 2, the Commission and the Board shall aim to ensure that the codes of conduct clearly set out their objectives, contain key performance indicators to measure the achievement of those objectives and take due account of the needs and interests of all interested parties, including citizens, at Union level. The Commission and the Board shall also aim to ensure that participants report regularly to the Commission and their respective Digital Service Coordinators of establishment on any measures taken and their outcomes, as measured against the key performance indicators that they contain.

3.   When giving effect to paragraphs 1 and 2, the Commission and the Board shall aim to ensure that the codes of conduct clearly set out their specific objectives , define the nature of the public policy objective pursued and, where appropriate, the role of competent authorities , contain key performance indicators to measure the achievement of those objectives and take fully into account of the needs and interests of all interested parties, and in particular citizens, at Union level. The Commission and the Board shall also aim to ensure that participants report regularly to the Commission and their respective Digital Service Coordinators of establishment on any measures taken and their outcomes, as measured against the key performance indicators that they contain. Key performance indicators and reporting commitments shall take into account differences in size and capacity between different participants.

Amendment 370

Proposal for a regulation

Article 35 — paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4.   The Commission and the Board shall assess whether the codes of conduct meet the aims specified in paragraphs 1 and 3, and shall regularly monitor and evaluate the achievement of their objectives. They shall publish their conclusions.

4.   The Commission and the Board shall assess whether the codes of conduct meet the aims specified in paragraphs 1 and 3, and shall regularly monitor and evaluate the achievement of their objectives. They shall publish their conclusions and request that the organisations involved amend their codes of conduct accordingly .

Amendment 371

Proposal for a regulation

Article 35 — paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5.   The Board shall regularly monitor and evaluate the achievement of the objectives of the codes of conduct, having regard to the key performance indicators that they may contain.

5.    The Commission and the Board shall regularly monitor and evaluate the achievement of the objectives of the codes of conduct, having regard to the key performance indicators that they may contain. In case of systematic failure to comply with the Codes of Conduct, the Commission and the Board may take a decision to temporarily suspend or definitively exclude platforms that do not meet their commitments as signatories to the codes of conduct.

Amendment 372

Proposal for a regulation

Article 36 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   The Commission shall encourage and facilitate the drawing up of codes of conduct at Union level between, online platforms and other relevant service providers, such as providers of online advertising intermediary services or organisations representing recipients of the service and civil society organisations or relevant authorities to contribute to further transparency in online advertising beyond the requirements of Articles 24 and 30.

1.   The Commission shall encourage and facilitate the drawing up of voluntary codes of conduct at Union level between, online platforms and other relevant service providers, such as providers of online advertising intermediary services or organisations representing recipients of the service and civil society organisations or relevant authorities to contribute to further transparency for all actors in the online advertising eco-system, beyond the requirements of Articles 24 and 30.

Amendment 373

Proposal for a regulation

Article 36 — paragraph 2 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   The Commission shall aim to ensure that the codes of conduct pursue an effective transmission of information, in full respect for the rights and interests of all parties involved, and a competitive, transparent and fair environment in online advertising, in accordance with Union and national law, in particular on competition and the protection of personal data. The Commission shall aim to ensure that the codes of conduct address at least:

2.   The Commission shall aim to ensure that the codes of conduct pursue an effective transmission of information, in full respect for the rights and interests of all parties involved, and a competitive, transparent and fair environment in online advertising, in accordance with Union and national law, in particular on competition and the protection of privacy and personal data. The Commission shall aim to ensure that the codes of conduct address at least:

Amendment 374

Proposal for a regulation

Article 36 — paragraph 2 — point b a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ba)

the different types of data that can be used.

Amendment 375

Proposal for a regulation

Article 36 — paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.   The Commission shall encourage the development of the codes of conduct within one year following the date of application of this Regulation and their application no later than six months after that date.

3.   The Commission shall encourage the development of the codes of conduct within one year following the date of application of this Regulation and their application no later than six months after that date. The Commission shall evaluate the application of those codes three years after the application of this Regulation.

Amendment 376

Proposal for a regulation

Article 36 — paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

3a.     The Commission shall encourage all the actors in the online advertising eco-system referred to in paragraph 1 to endorse and comply with the commitments stated in the codes of conduct.

Amendment 377

Proposal for a regulation

Article 37 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   The Board may recommend the Commission to initiate the drawing up, in accordance with paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, of crisis protocols for addressing crisis situations strictly limited to extraordinary circumstances affecting public security or public health.

1.   The Board may recommend the Commission to initiate the drawing up, in accordance with paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, of voluntary crisis protocols for addressing crisis situations strictly limited to extraordinary circumstances affecting public security or public health.

Amendment 378

Proposal for a regulation

Article 37 — paragraph 4 — point f a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(fa)

measures to ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities during implementation of crisis protocols, including by providing accessible description about these protocols.

Amendment 379

Proposal for a regulation

Article 37 — paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5.   If the Commission considers that a crisis protocol fails to effectively address the crisis situation, or to safeguard the exercise of fundamental rights as referred to in point (e) of paragraph 4, it may request the participants to revise the crisis protocol, including by taking additional measures.

5.   If the Commission considers that a crisis protocol fails to effectively address the crisis situation, or to safeguard the exercise of fundamental rights as referred to in point (e) of paragraph 4, it shall request the participants to revise the crisis protocol, including by taking additional measures.

Amendment 380

Proposal for a regulation

Article 38 — paragraph 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

4a.     Member States shall ensure that the competent authorities, referred to in paragraph 1 and in particular their Digital Services Coordinators, have adequate technical financial and human resources to carry out their tasks under this Regulation.

Amendment 381

Proposal for a regulation

Article 39 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   Member States shall ensure that their Digital Services Coordinators perform their tasks under this Regulation in an impartial, transparent and timely manner. Member States shall ensure that their Digital Services Coordinators have adequate technical, financial and human resources to carry out their tasks.

1.   Member States shall ensure that their Digital Services Coordinators perform their tasks under this Regulation in an impartial, transparent and timely manner.

Amendment 382

Proposal for a regulation

Article 40 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   The Member State in which the main establishment of the provider of intermediary services is located shall have jurisdiction for the purposes of Chapters III and IV of this Regulation.

1.   The Member State in which the main establishment of the provider of intermediary services is located shall have jurisdiction for the purposes of the supervision and enforcement by the national competent authorities, in accordance with this Chapter, of the obligations imposed on intermediaries under this Regulation.

Amendment 383

Proposal for a regulation

Article 40 — paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   A provider of intermediary services which does not have an establishment in the Union but which offers services in the Union shall, for the purposes of Chapters III and IV , be deemed to be under the jurisdiction of the Member State where its legal representative resides or is established.

2.   A provider of intermediary services which does not have an establishment in the Union but which offers services in the Union shall, for the purposes of this Article , be deemed to be under the jurisdiction of the Member State where its legal representative resides or is established.

Amendment 384

Proposal for a regulation

Article 40 — paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.   Where a provider of intermediary services fails to appoint a legal representative in accordance with Article 11, all Member States shall have jurisdiction for the purposes of Chapters III and IV . Where a Member State decides to exercise jurisdiction under this paragraph, it shall inform all other Member States and ensure that the principle of ne bis in idem is respected.

3.   Where a provider of intermediary services fails to appoint a legal representative in accordance with Article 11, all Member States shall have jurisdiction for the purposes of this Article . Where a Member State decides to exercise jurisdiction under this paragraph, it shall inform all other Member States and ensure that the principle of ne bis in idem is respected.

Amendment 385

Proposal for a regulation

Article 41 — paragraph 1 — point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a)

the power to require those providers, as well as any other persons acting for purposes related to their trade, business, craft or profession that may reasonably be aware of information relating to a suspected infringement of this Regulation, including, organisations performing the audits referred to in Articles 28 and 50(3), to provide such information within a reasonable time period ;

(a)

the power to require those providers, as well as any other persons acting for purposes related to their trade, business, craft or profession that may reasonably be aware of information relating to a suspected infringement of this Regulation, including, organisations performing the audits referred to in Articles 28 and 50(3), to provide such information without undue delay, or at the latest within three months ;

Amendment 386

Proposal for a regulation

Article 41 — paragraph 2 — point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(e)

the power to adopt interim measures to avoid the risk of serious harm.

(e)

the power to adopt proportionate interim measures or to request the relevant judicial authority to do so, to avoid the risk of serious harm.

Amendment 387

Proposal for a regulation

Article 41 — paragraph 2 — subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

As regards points (c) and (d) of the first subparagraph, Digital Services Coordinators shall also have the enforcement powers set out in those points in respect of the other persons referred to in paragraph 1 for failure to comply with any of the orders issued to them pursuant to that paragraph. They shall only exercise those enforcement powers after having provided those others persons in good time with all relevant information relating to such orders, including the applicable time period, the fines or periodic payments that may be imposed for failure to comply and redress possibilities.

As regards points (c) and (d) of the first subparagraph, Digital Services Coordinators shall also have the enforcement powers set out in those points in respect of the other persons referred to in paragraph 1 for failure to comply with any of the orders issued to them pursuant to that paragraph. They shall only exercise those enforcement powers after having provided those other persons in good time with all relevant information relating to such orders, including the applicable time period, the fines or periodic payments that may be imposed for failure to comply and redress possibilities.

Amendment 388

Proposal for a regulation

Article 41 — paragraph 3 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.   Where needed for carrying out their tasks, Digital Services Coordinators shall also have, in respect of providers of intermediary services under the jurisdiction of their Member State, where all other powers pursuant to this Article to bring about the cessation of an infringement have been exhausted, the infringement persists and causes serious harm which cannot be avoided through the exercise of other powers available under Union or national law, the power to take the following measures:

3.   Where needed for carrying out their tasks, Digital Services Coordinators shall also have, in respect of providers of intermediary services under the jurisdiction of their Member State, where all other powers pursuant to this Article to bring about the cessation of an infringement have been exhausted, the infringement persists or is continuously repeated and causes serious harm which cannot be avoided through the exercise of other powers available under Union or national law, the power to take the following measures:

Amendment 389

Proposal for a regulation

Article 41 — paragraph 3 — point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a)

require the management body of the providers, within a reasonable time period, to examine the situation, adopt and submit an action plan setting out the necessary measures to terminate the infringement, ensure that the provider takes those measures, and report on the measures taken;

(a)

require the management body of the providers, within a reasonable time period , which shall in any case not exceed three months , to examine the situation, adopt and submit an action plan setting out the necessary measures to terminate the infringement, ensure that the provider takes those measures, and report on the measures taken;

Amendment 390

Proposal for a regulation

Article 41 — paragraph 3 — point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b)

where the Digital Services Coordinator considers that the provider has not sufficiently complied with the requirements of the first indent, that the infringement persists and causes serious harm, and that the infringement entails a serious criminal offence involving a threat to the life or safety of persons, request the competent judicial authority of that Member State to order the temporary restriction of access of recipients of the service concerned by the infringement or, only where that is not technically feasible, to the online interface of the provider of intermediary services on which the infringement takes place.

(b)

where the Digital Services Coordinator considers that the provider has not complied with the requirements of the first indent, that the infringement persists or is continuously repeated and causes serious harm, and that the infringement entails a serious criminal offence involving a threat to the life or safety of persons, request the competent judicial authority of that Member State to order the temporary restriction of access of recipients of the service concerned by the infringement or, only where that is not technically feasible, to the online interface of the provider of intermediary services on which the infringement takes place.

Amendment 391

Proposal for a regulation

Article 41 — paragraph 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

6a.     The Commission shall publish guidelines by [six months after the entry into force of this Regulation] on the powers of and procedures applicable to the Digital Services Coordinators.

Amendment 392

Proposal for a regulation

Article 42 — paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   Penalties shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Member States shall notify the Commission of those rules and of those measures and shall notify it, without delay, of any subsequent amendments affecting them.

2.   Penalties shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Member States shall notify the Commission and the Board of those rules and of those measures and shall notify it, without delay, of any subsequent amendments affecting them.

Amendment 393

Proposal for a regulation

Article 42 — paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.   Member States shall ensure that the maximum amount of penalties imposed for a failure to comply with the obligations laid down in this Regulation shall not exceed 6 % of the annual income or turnover of the provider of intermediary services concerned. Penalties for the supply of incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, failure to reply or rectify incorrect, incomplete or misleading information and to submit to an on-site inspection shall not exceed 1 % of the annual income or turnover of the provider concerned.

3.   Member States shall ensure that the maximum amount of penalties imposed for a failure to comply with the obligations laid down in this Regulation shall not exceed 6 % of the annual worldwide turnover of the provider of intermediary services concerned. Penalties for the supply of incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, failure to reply or rectify incorrect, incomplete or misleading information and to submit to an on-site inspection shall not exceed 1 % of the annual worldwide turnover of the provider concerned.

Amendment 394

Proposal for a regulation

Article 42 — paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4.   Member States shall ensure that the maximum amount of a periodic penalty payment shall not exceed 5 % of the average daily turnover of the provider of intermediary services concerned in the preceding financial year per day, calculated from the date specified in the decision concerned.

4.   Member States shall ensure that the maximum amount of a periodic penalty payment shall not exceed 5 % of the average daily worldwide turnover of the provider of intermediary services concerned in the preceding financial year per day, calculated from the date specified in the decision concerned.

Amendment 395

Proposal for a regulation

Article 42 — paragraph 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

4a.     Member States shall ensure that administrative or judicial authorities issuing orders pursuant to Article 8 and 9 shall only issue penalties or fines in line with this Article.

Amendment 396

Proposal for a regulation

Article 43 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Recipients of the service shall have the right to lodge a complaint against providers of intermediary services alleging an infringement of this Regulation with the Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State where the recipient resides or is established. The Digital Services Coordinator shall assess the complaint and, where appropriate, transmit it to the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment. Where the complaint falls under the responsibility of another competent authority in its Member State, the Digital Service Coordinator receiving the complaint shall transmit it to that authority.

1.    Recipients of the service, , shall have the right to lodge a complaint against providers of intermediary services alleging an infringement of this Regulation with the Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State where the recipient resides or is established. During these proceedings, both parties shall have the right to be heard and receive appropriate information about the status of the proceedings. The Digital Services Coordinator shall assess the complaint and, where appropriate, transmit it to the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment without undue delay . Where the complaint falls under the responsibility of another competent authority in its Member State, the Digital Service Coordinator receiving the complaint shall transmit it to that authority , without undue delay .

Amendment 397

Proposal for a regulation

Article 43 — paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1a.     Upon receipt of the complaint, transmitted pursuant to paragraph 1, the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment shall assess the matter in a timely manner and shall inform within six months the Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State where the recipient resides or is established if it intends to proceed with an investigation. If it opens an investigation, it shall provide an update at least every three months. The Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State where the recipient resides or is established shall consequently inform the recipient.

Amendment 398

Proposal for a regulation

Article 43 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 43a

 

Compensation

 

Without prejudice to Article 5, recipients of the service shall have the right to seek, in accordance with relevant Union and national law compensation from providers of intermediary services, against any direct damage or loss suffered due to an infringement by providers of intermediary services of obligations established under this Regulation.

Amendment 399

Proposal for a regulation

Article 44 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   Digital Services Coordinators shall draw up an annual report on their activities under this Regulation. They shall make the annual reports available to the public, and shall communicate them to the Commission and to the Board.

1.   Digital Services Coordinators shall draw up an annual report on their activities under this Regulation. They shall make the annual reports in a standardised and machine-readable format available to the public, and shall communicate them to the Commission and to the Board.

Amendment 400

Proposal for a regulation

Article 44 — paragraph 2 — point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a)

the number and subject matter of orders to act against illegal content and orders to provide information issued in accordance with Articles 8 and 9 by any national judicial or administrative authority of the Member State of the Digital Services Coordinator concerned;

(a)

the number and subject matter of orders to act against illegal content and orders to provide information issued in accordance with Articles 8 and 9 by any national judicial or administrative authority of the Member State of the Digital Services Coordinator concerned , including information on the name of the issuing authority, the name of the provider and the type of action specified in the order, as well as a justification that the order complies with Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC ;

Amendment 401

Proposal for a regulation

Article 44 — paragraph 2 — point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b)

the effects given to those orders, as communicated to the Digital Services Coordinator pursuant to Articles 8 and 9.

(b)

the effects given to those orders, as communicated to the Digital Services Coordinator pursuant to Articles 8 and 9 , the number of appeals made against those orders, as well as the outcome of the appeals .

Amendment 402

Proposal for a regulation

Article 44 — paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2a.     The Commission shall make publicly available a biennial report analysing the annual reports, communicated pursuant to paragraph 1 and shall submit it to the European Parliament and to the Council.

Amendment 403

Proposal for a regulation

Article 45 — paragraph 1 — subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Where the Board has reasons to suspect that a provider of intermediary services infringed this Regulation in a manner involving at least three Member States, it may recommend the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment to assess the matter and take the necessary investigatory and enforcement measures to ensure compliance with this Regulation.

Where the Board has reasons to suspect that a provider of intermediary services infringed this Regulation in a manner involving at least three Member States, it may request the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment to assess the matter and take the necessary investigatory and enforcement measures to ensure compliance with this Regulation.

Amendment 404

Proposal for a regulation

Article 45 — paragraph 2 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   A request or recommendation pursuant to paragraph 1 shall at least indicate:

2.   A request pursuant to paragraph 1 shall at least indicate:

Amendment 405

Proposal for a regulation

Article 45 — paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

2a.     A request pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be at the same time communicated to the Commission. Where the Commission believes that the request is not justified or where the Commission is currently taking action on the same matter, the Commission can ask for the request to be withdrawn.

Amendment 406

Proposal for a regulation

Article 45 — paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.   The Digital Services Coordinator of establishment shall take into utmost account the request or recommendation pursuant to paragraph 1. Where it considers that it has insufficient information to act upon the request or recommendation and has reasons to consider that the Digital Services Coordinator that sent the request, or the Board, could provide additional information, it may request such information. The time period laid down in paragraph 4 shall be suspended until that additional information is provided.

3.   The Digital Services Coordinator of establishment shall take into utmost account the request pursuant to paragraph 1. Where it considers that it has insufficient information to act upon the request and has reasons to consider that the Digital Services Coordinator that sent the request, or the Board, could provide additional information, it may request such information. The time period laid down in paragraph 4 shall be suspended until that additional information is provided.

Amendment 407

Proposal for a regulation

Article 45 — paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4.   The Digital Services Coordinator of establishment shall, without undue delay and in any event not later than two months following receipt of the request or recommendation , communicate to the Digital Services Coordinator that sent the request, or the Board, its assessment of the suspected infringement, or that of any other competent authority pursuant to national law where relevant, and an explanation of any investigatory or enforcement measures taken or envisaged in relation thereto to ensure compliance with this Regulation.

4.   The Digital Services Coordinator of establishment shall, without undue delay and in any event not later than two months following receipt of the request, communicate to the Digital Services Coordinator that sent the request, or the Board, its assessment of the suspected infringement, or that of any other competent authority pursuant to national law where relevant, and an explanation of any investigatory or enforcement measures taken or envisaged in relation thereto to ensure compliance with this Regulation.

Amendment 408

Proposal for a regulation

Article 45 — paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5.   Where the Digital Services Coordinator that sent the request, or, where appropriate, the Board, did not receive a reply within the time period laid down in paragraph 4 or where it does not agree with the assessment of the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment, it may refer the matter to the Commission, providing all relevant information. That information shall include at least the request or recommendation sent to the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment, any additional information provided pursuant to paragraph 3 and the communication referred to in paragraph 4.

5.   Where the Digital Services Coordinator that sent the request, or, where appropriate, the Board, did not receive a reply within the time period laid down in paragraph 4 or where it does not agree with the assessment of the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment, it may refer the matter to the Commission, providing all relevant information. That information shall include at least the request sent to the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment, any additional information provided pursuant to paragraph 3 and the communication referred to in paragraph 4.

Amendment 409

Proposal for a regulation

Article 45 — paragraph 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7.   Where, pursuant to paragraph 6, the Commission concludes that the assessment or the investigatory or enforcement measures taken or envisaged pursuant to paragraph 4 are incompatible with this Regulation, it shall request the Digital Service Coordinator of establishment to further assess the matter and take the necessary investigatory or enforcement measures to ensure compliance with this Regulation, and to inform it about those measures taken within two months from that request.

7.   Where, pursuant to paragraph 6, the Commission concludes that the assessment or the investigatory or enforcement measures taken or envisaged pursuant to paragraph 4 are incompatible with this Regulation, it shall request the Digital Service Coordinator of establishment to further assess the matter and take the necessary investigatory or enforcement measures to ensure compliance with this Regulation, and to inform it about those measures taken within two months from that request. This information shall be also transmitted to the Digital Services Coordinator or the Board that initiated the proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1.

Amendment 410

Proposal for a regulation

Article 46 — paragraph 1 — subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Such joint investigations are without prejudice to the tasks and powers of the participating Digital Coordinators and the requirements applicable to the performance of those tasks and exercise of those powers provided in this Regulation. The participating Digital Services Coordinators shall make the results of the joint investigations available to other Digital Services Coordinators, the Commission and the Board through the system provided for in Article 67 for the fulfilment of their respective tasks under this Regulation.

deleted

Amendment 411

Proposal for a regulation

Article 46 — paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1a.     Where a Digital Services Coordinator of establishment has reasons to suspect that a provider of intermediary services has infringed this Regulation in a manner involving at least one other Member State, it may propose to the Digital Services Coordinator of destination concerned to launch a joint investigation. The joint investigation shall be based on an agreement between the Member States concerned.

Amendment 412

Proposal for a regulation

Article 46 — paragraph 1 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1b.     Upon request of the Digital Services Coordinator of destination who has reasons to suspect that a provider of intermediary services has infringed this Regulation in its Member State, the Board may recommend to the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment to launch a joint investigation with the Digital Services Coordinator of destination concerned. The joint investigation shall be based on an agreement between the Member States concerned.

 

Where there is no agreement within one month, the joint investigation shall be under the supervision of the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment.

 

Such joint investigations are without prejudice to the tasks and powers of the participating Digital Services Coordinators and the requirements applicable to the performance of those tasks and exercise of those powers provided in this Regulation. The participating Digital Services Coordinators shall make the results of the joint investigations available to other Digital Services Coordinators, the Commission and the Board through the system provided for in Article 67 for the fulfilment of their respective tasks under this Regulation.

Amendment 413

Proposal for a regulation

Article 47 — paragraph 2 — point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b)

coordinating and contributing to guidance and analysis of the Commission and Digital Services Coordinators and other competent authorities on emerging issues across the internal market with regard to matters covered by this Regulation;

(b)

coordinating and providing guidance and analysis to the Commission and Digital Services Coordinators and other competent authorities on emerging issues across the internal market with regard to matters covered by this Regulation;

Amendment 414

Proposal for a regulation

Article 47 — paragraph 2 — point b a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ba)

contributing to the effective application of Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC to prevent fragmentation of the digital single market;

Amendment 415

Proposal for a regulation

Article 47 — paragraph 2 — point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ca)

contribute to the effective cooperation with the competent authorities of third countries and with international organisations.

Amendment 416

Proposal for a regulation

Article 48 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   The Board shall be composed of the Digital Services Coordinators, who shall be represented by high-level officials. Where provided for by national law, other competent authorities entrusted with specific operational responsibilities for the application and enforcement of this Regulation alongside the Digital Services Coordinator shall participate in the Board. Other national authorities may be invited to the meetings, where the issues discussed are of relevance for them.

1.   The Board shall be composed of the Digital Services Coordinators, who shall be represented by high-level officials. Where provided for by national law, other competent authorities entrusted with specific operational responsibilities for the application and enforcement of this Regulation alongside the Digital Services Coordinator , may participate in the Board. Other national authorities may be invited to the meetings, where the issues discussed are of relevance for them. The meeting shall be deemed valid where at least two thirds of its members are present.

Amendment 417

Proposal for a regulation

Article 48 — paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1a.     The Board shall be chaired by the Commission. The Commission shall convene the meetings and prepare the agenda in accordance with the tasks of the Board pursuant to this Regulation and with its rules of procedure.

Amendment 418

Proposal for a regulation

Article 48 — paragraph 2 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   Each Member State shall have one vote. The Commission shall not have voting rights.

2.   Each Member State shall have one vote , to be cast by the Digital Services Coordinator . The Commission shall not have voting rights.

Amendment 419

Proposal for a regulation

Article 48 — paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.     The Board shall be chaired by the Commission. The Commission shall convene the meetings and prepare the agenda in accordance the tasks of the Board pursuant to this Regulation and with its rules of procedure.

deleted

Amendments 420 and 562/rev

Proposal for a regulation

Article 48 — paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5.   The Board may invite experts and observers to attend its meetings, and may cooperate with other Union bodies, offices, agencies and advisory groups, as well as external experts as appropriate. The Board shall make the results of this cooperation publicly available.

5.   The Board may invite experts and observers to attend its meetings, and shall cooperate with other Union bodies, offices, agencies and advisory groups, as well as external experts as appropriate. The Board shall make the results of this cooperation publicly available.

Amendment 421

Proposal for a regulation

Article 48 — paragraph 5 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

5a.     The Board shall, where appropriate, consult interested parties and shall make the results of that consultation publicly available.

Amendment 422

Proposal for a regulation

Article 48 — paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6.   The Board shall adopt its rules of procedure, following the consent of the Commission.

6.   The Board shall adopt its rules of procedure by a two-thirds majority of its members , following the consent of the Commission.

Amendment 423

Proposal for a regulation

Article 49 — paragraph 1 — point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ca)

issue specific recommendations for the implementation of Article 13a;

Amendment 424

Proposal for a regulation

Article 49 — paragraph 1 — point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d)

advise the Commission to take the measures referred to in Article 51 and , where requested by the Commission, adopt opinions on draft Commission measures concerning very large online platforms in accordance with this Regulation;

(d)

advise the Commission to take the measures referred to in Article 51 and adopt opinions on draft Commission measures concerning very large online platforms in accordance with this Regulation;

Amendment 425

Proposal for a regulation

Article 49 — paragraph 1 — point d a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(da)

monitor the compliance with Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC of measures taken by a Member State restricting the freedom to provide services of intermediary service providers from another Member State and ensure that those measures are strictly necessary and do not restrict the application of this Regulation;

Amendment 426

Proposal for a regulation

Article 49 — paragraph 1 — point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(e)

support and promote the development and implementation of European standards, guidelines, reports, templates and code of conducts as provided for in this Regulation, as well as the identification of emerging issues, with regard to matters covered by this Regulation.

(e)

support and promote the development and implementation of European standards, guidelines, reports, templates and code of conducts in close collaboration with relevant stakeholders as provided for in this Regulation , including by issuing opinions, recommendations or advice on matters related to Article 34 , as well as the identification of emerging issues, with regard to matters covered by this Regulation.

Amendment 427

Proposal for a regulation

Article 49 — paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   Digital Services Coordinators and other national competent authorities that do not follow the opinions, requests or recommendations addressed to them adopted by the Board shall provide the reasons for this choice when reporting pursuant to this Regulation or when adopting their relevant decisions, as appropriate.

2.   Digital Services Coordinators and other national competent authorities that do not follow the opinions, requests or recommendations addressed to them adopted by the Board shall provide the reasons for this choice and an explanation on the investigations, actions and the measures that they have implemented when reporting pursuant to this Regulation or when adopting their relevant decisions, as appropriate.

Amendment 428

Proposal for a regulation

Article 49 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 49a

 

Reports

 

1.     The Board shall draw up an annual report regarding its activities. The report shall be made public and be transmitted to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the Commission in all official languages of the Union.

 

2.     The annual report shall include, among other information, a review of the practical application of the opinions, guidelines, recommendations advice and any other measures taken under Article 49(1).

Amendment 429

Proposal for a regulation

Article 50 — paragraph 1 — subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The Commission acting on its own initiative, or the Board acting on its own initiative or upon request of at least three Digital Services Coordinators of destination, may, where it has reasons to suspect that a very large online platform infringed any of those provisions, recommend the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment to investigate the suspected infringement with a view to that Digital Services Coordinator adopting such a decision within a reasonable time period.

The Commission acting on its own initiative, or the Board acting on its own initiative or upon request of at least three Digital Services Coordinators of destination, may, where it has reasons to suspect that a very large online platform infringed any of the provisions of Section 4 of Chapter III , recommend the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment to investigate the suspected infringement with a view to that Digital Services Coordinator adopting such a decision within a reasonable time period and no later than three months .

Amendment 430

Proposal for a regulation

Article 50 — paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   When communicating the decision referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 to the very large online platform concerned, the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment shall request it to draw up and communicate to the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment, the Commission and the Board, within one month from that decision, an action plan, specifying how that platform intends to terminate or remedy the infringement. The measures set out in the action plan may include , where appropriate, participation in a code of conduct as provided for in Article 35.

2.   When communicating the decision referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 to the very large online platform concerned, the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment shall request it to draw up and communicate to the Digital Services Coordinator of establishment, the Commission and the Board, within one month from that decision, an action plan, specifying how that platform intends to terminate or remedy the infringement. The measures set out in the action plan may recommend , where appropriate, participation in a code of conduct as provided for in Article 35.

Amendment 431

Proposal for a regulation

Article 51 — title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Intervention by the Commission and opening of proceedings

Opening of proceedings by the Commission

Amendment 432

Proposal for a regulation

Article 51 — paragraph 1 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   The Commission, acting either upon the Board’s recommendation or on its own initiative after consulting the Board, may initiate proceedings in view of the possible adoption of decisions pursuant to Articles 58 and 59 in respect of the relevant conduct by the very large online platform that:

1.   The Commission, acting either upon the Board’s recommendation or on its own initiative after consulting the Board, shall initiate proceedings in view of the possible adoption of decisions pursuant to Articles 58 and 59 in respect of the relevant conduct by the very large online platform that:

Amendment 433

Proposal for a regulation

Article 51 — paragraph 2 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   Where the Commission decides to initiate proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1, it shall notify all Digital Services Coordinators, the Board and the very large online platform concerned.

2.   Where the Commission initiates proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1, it shall notify all Digital Services Coordinators, the Board and the very large online platform concerned.

Amendment 434

Proposal for a regulation

Article 52 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   In order to carry out the tasks assigned to it under this Section, the Commission may by simple request or by decision require the very large online platforms concerned, as well as any other persons acting for purposes related to their trade, business, craft or profession that may be reasonably be aware of information relating to the suspected infringement or the infringement, as applicable, including organisations performing the audits referred to in Articles 28 and 50(3), to provide such information within a reasonable time period.

1.   In order to carry out the tasks assigned to it under this Section, the Commission may by reasoned request or by decision require the very large online platforms concerned, their legal representatives as well as any other persons acting for purposes related to their trade, business, craft or profession that may be reasonably be aware of information relating to the suspected infringement or the infringement, as applicable, including organisations performing the audits referred to in Articles 28 and 50(3), to provide such information within a reasonable time period

Amendment 435

Proposal for a regulation

Article 52 — paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

3a.     The purpose of the request shall include reasoning on why and how the information is necessary and proportionate to the objective pursued and why it cannot be received by other means.

Amendment 436

Proposal for a regulation

Article 52 — paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4.   The owners of the very large online platform concerned or other person referred to in Article 52(1) or their representatives and, in the case of legal persons, companies or firms, or where they have no legal personality, the persons authorised to represent them by law or by their constitution shall supply the information requested on behalf of the very large online platform concerned or other person referred to in Article 52(1). Lawyers duly authorised to act may supply the information on behalf of their clients. The latter shall remain fully responsible if the information supplied is incomplete, incorrect or misleading.

4.   The owners of the very large online platform concerned or other person referred to in Article 52(1) or their representatives and, in the case of legal persons, companies or firms, or where they have no legal personality, the persons authorised to represent them by law or by their constitution shall supply the information requested on behalf of the very large online platform concerned or other person referred to in Article 52(1).

Amendment 437

Proposal for a regulation

Article 55 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   In the context of proceedings which may lead to the adoption of a decision of non-compliance pursuant to Article 58(1), where there is an urgency due to the risk of serious damage for the recipients of the service, the Commission may, by decision, order interim measures against the very large online platform concerned on the basis of a prima facie finding of an infringement.

1.   In the context of proceedings which may lead to the adoption of a decision of non-compliance pursuant to Article 58(1), where there is an urgency due to the risk of serious damage for the recipients of the service the Commission may, by decision, order proportionate interim measures in compliance with fundamental rights against the very large online platform concerned on the basis of a prima facie finding of an infringement.

Amendment 438

Proposal for a regulation

Article 56 — paragraph 2 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   The Commission may, upon request or on its own initiative, reopen the proceedings:

2.   The Commission shall reopen the proceedings:

Amendment 439

Proposal for a regulation

Article 58 — paragraph 1 — point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b)

interim measures ordered pursuant to Article 55;

(b)

interim measures ordered pursuant to Article 55; or

Amendment 440

Proposal for a regulation

Article 58 — paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.   In the decision adopted pursuant to paragraph 1 the Commission shall order the very large online platform concerned to take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the decision pursuant to paragraph 1 within a reasonable time period and to provide information on the measures that that platform intends to take to comply with the decision.

3.   In the decision adopted pursuant to paragraph 1 the Commission shall order the very large online platform concerned to take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the decision pursuant to paragraph 1 within one month and to provide information on the measures that that platform intends to take to comply with the decision.

Amendment 441

Proposal for a regulation

Article 58 — paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5.   Where the Commission finds that the conditions of paragraph 1 are not met, it shall close the investigation by a decision.

5.   Where the Commission finds that the conditions of paragraph 1 are not met, it shall close the investigation by a decision. The decision shall apply with immediate effect.

Amendment 442

Proposal for a regulation

Article 59 — paragraph 1 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   In the decision pursuant to Article 58, the Commission may impose on the very large online platform concerned fines not exceeding 6 % of its total turnover in the preceding financial year where it finds that that platform, intentionally or negligently:

1.   In the decision pursuant to Article 58, the Commission may impose on the very large online platform concerned fines not exceeding 6 % of its total worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year where it finds that the platform, intentionally or negligently:

Amendment 443

Proposal for a regulation

Article 59 — paragraph 2 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   The Commission may by decision impose on the very large online platform concerned or other person referred to in Article 52(1) fines not exceeding 1 % of the total turnover in the preceding financial year, where they intentionally or negligently:

2.   The Commission may by decision and in compliance with the proportionality principle impose on the very large online platform concerned or other person referred to in Article 52(1) fines not exceeding 1 % of the total worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year, where they intentionally or negligently:

Amendment 444

Proposal for a regulation

Article 59 — paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4.   In fixing the amount of the fine, the Commission shall have regard to the nature, gravity, duration and recurrence of the infringement and, for fines imposed pursuant to paragraph 2, the delay caused to the proceedings.

4.   In fixing the amount of the fine, the Commission shall have regard to the nature, gravity, duration and recurrence of the infringement any fines issued under Article 42 for the same infringement and, for fines imposed pursuant to paragraph 2, the delay caused to the proceedings.

Amendment 445

Proposal for a regulation

Article 60 — paragraph 1 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   The Commission may, by decision, impose on the very large online platform concerned or other person referred to in Article 52(1), as applicable, periodic penalty payments not exceeding 5 % of the average daily turnover in the preceding financial year per day, calculated from the date appointed by the decision, in order to compel them to:

1.   The Commission may, by decision, impose on the very large online platform concerned or other person referred to in Article 52(1), as applicable, periodic penalty payments not exceeding 5 % of the average daily worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year per day, calculated from the date appointed by the decision, in order to compel them to:

Amendment 446

Proposal for a regulation

Article 64 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   The Commission shall publish the decisions it adopts pursuant to Articles 55(1), 56(1), 58, 59 and 60. Such publication shall state the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, including any penalties imposed.

1.   The Commission shall publish the decisions it adopts pursuant to Articles 55(1), 56(1), 58, 59 and 60. Such publication shall state the names of the parties and the main content of the decision, including any penalties imposed , along with, where possible and justified, non-confidential documents or other forms of information on which the decision is based .

Amendment 447

Proposal for a regulation

Article 65 — paragraph 1 — subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Prior to making such request to the Digital Services Coordinator, the Commission shall invite interested parties to submit written observations within a time period that shall not be less than two weeks, describing the measures it intends to request and identifying the intended addressee or addressees thereof.

Prior to making such request to the Digital Services Coordinator, the Commission shall invite interested parties to submit written observations within a time period that shall not be less than 14 working days describing the measures it intends to request and identifying the intended addressee or addressees thereof.

Amendment 448

Proposal for a regulation

Article 66 — paragraph 1 — point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ca)

the development and implementation of standards provided for in Article 34.

Amendment 449

Proposal for a regulation

Article 68 — paragraph 1 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Without prejudice to Directive 2020/XX/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (52), recipients of intermediary services shall have the right to mandate a body, organisation or association to exercise the rights referred to in Articles 17, 18 and 19 on their behalf, provided the body, organisation or association meets all of the following conditions:

Without prejudice to Directive (EU) 2020/1818 of the European Parliament and of the Council (52), recipients of intermediary services shall have the right to mandate a , or a body, organisation or association to exercise the rights referred to in Articles 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 43 and 43a on their behalf, provided the body, organisation or association meets all of the following conditions:

Amendment 450

Proposal for a regulation

Article 69 — paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   The delegation of power referred to in Articles 23, 25, and 31 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from [date of expected adoption of the Regulation].

2.   The delegation of power referred to in Articles 13a, 16, 23, 25, and 31 shall be conferred on the Commission for five years starting from [date of expected adoption of the Regulation]. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period.

Amendment 451

Proposal for a regulation

Article 69 — paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.   The delegation of power referred to in Articles 23, 25 and 31 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.

3.   The delegation of power referred to in Articles 13a, 16, 23, 25, 31 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.

Amendment 452

Proposal for a regulation

Article 69 — paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5.   A delegated act adopted pursuant to Articles 23, 25 and 31 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed by either the European Parliament or the Council within a period of three months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by three months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.

5.   A delegated act adopted pursuant to Articles 13a, 16, 23, 25, 31 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed by either the European Parliament or the Council within a period of four months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by three months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.

Amendment 453

Proposal for a regulation

Article 70 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   The Commission shall be assisted by the Digital Services Committee. That Committee shall be a Committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.

1.   The Commission shall be assisted by a Digital Services Committee. That Committee shall be a Committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.

Amendment 454

Proposal for a regulation

Article 73 — paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   By five years after the entry into force of this Regulation at the latest, and every five years thereafter, the Commission shall evaluate this Regulation and report to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee.

1.   By three years after the entry into force of this Regulation at the latest, and every three years thereafter, the Commission shall evaluate this Regulation and report to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. This report shall address in particular:

 

(a)

the application of Article 25, including with respect to the number of average monthly active recipients of the service;

 

(b)

the application of Article 11;

 

(c)

the application of Article 14,

 

(d)

the application of Articles 35 and 36.

Amendment 455

Proposal for a regulation

Article 73 — paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1a.     Where appropriate, the report referred to in paragraph 1 shall be accompanied by a proposal for amendment of this Regulation.

Amendment 456

Proposal for a regulation

Article 73 — paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3.   In carrying out the evaluations referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission shall take into account the positions and findings of the European Parliament, the Council, and other relevant bodies or sources.

3.   In carrying out the evaluations referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission shall take into account the positions and findings of the European Parliament, the Council, and other relevant bodies or sources , and pay specific attention to small and medium-sized enterprises and the position of new competitors.

Amendment 457

Proposal for a regulation

Article 74 — paragraph 2 — introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.   It shall apply from [date — three months after its entry into force].

2.   It shall apply from [date — six months after its entry into force].


(1)  The matter was referred back for interinstitutional negotiations to the committee responsible, pursuant to Rule 59(4), fourth subparagraph (A9-0356/2021).

(25)  Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1).

(25)  Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1).

(27)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1).

(27)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1).

(28)  Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 95, 15.4.2010, p. 1 .

(29)  Regulation (EU) …/.. of the European Parliament and of the Council — proposed Terrorist Content Online Regulation

(28)  Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 95, 15.4.2010, p. 1 .

(29)  Regulation (EU) 2021/784 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2021 on addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online (OJ L 172, 17.5.2021, p. 79).

(30)  Regulation (EU) 2019/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on the marketing and use of explosives precursors, amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 98/2013 (OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 1).

(31)  Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services (OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 57).

(32)  Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37.

(33)  Regulation […/…] on temporary derogation from certain provisions of Directive 2002/58/EC.

(34)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22).

(35)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 64).

(36)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ L 95, 21.4.1993, p. 29).

(37)  Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directives 98/6/EC, 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the better enforcement and modernisation of Union consumer protection rules (OJ L 328, 18.12.2019, p. 7).

(38)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1).

(30)  Regulation (EU) 2019/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on the marketing and use of explosives precursors, amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 98/2013 (OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 1).

(31)  Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services (OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 57).

(32)  Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37.

(33)  Regulation […/…] on temporary derogation from certain provisions of Directive 2002/58/EC.

(33a)   Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (Recast) (OJ L 321, 17.12.2018, p. 36).

(34)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22).

(35)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 64).

(36)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ L 95, 21.4.1993, p. 29).

(37)  Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directives 98/6/EC, 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the better enforcement and modernisation of Union consumer protection rules (OJ L 328, 18.12.2019, p. 7).

(37a)   Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (OJ L 345, 27.12.2017, p. 1).

(38)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1).

(39)  Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (Recast), OJ L 321, 17.12.2018, p. 36

(39)  Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (Recast), OJ L 321, 17.12.2018, p. 36

(40)  Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, p. 36).

(40)  Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, p. 36).

(1)   Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA (OJ L 335, 17.12.2011, p. 1).

(43)  Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and replacing and repealing Council Decisions 2009/371/JHA, 2009/934/JHA, 2009/935/JHA, 2009/936/JHA and 2009/968/JHA, OJ L 135, 24.5.2016, p. 53

(43)  Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and replacing and repealing Council Decisions 2009/371/JHA, 2009/934/JHA, 2009/935/JHA, 2009/936/JHA and 2009/968/JHA, OJ L 135, 24.5.2016, p. 53

(1)   Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA (OJ L 335, 17.12.2011, p. 1).

(45)  https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/vies/vieshome.do?selectedLanguage=en

(46)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 64).

(47)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22).

(48)  Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers (OJ L 80, 18.3.1998, p. 27).

(45)  https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/vies/vieshome.do?selectedLanguage=en

(46)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 64).

(47)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22).

(48)  Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers (OJ L 80, 18.3.1998, p. 27).

(51)  Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on market surveillance and compliance of products and amending Directive 2004/42/EC and Regulations (EC) No 765/2008 and (EU) No 305/2011 (OJ L 169, 25.6.2019, p. 1).

(51)  Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on market surveillance and compliance of products and amending Directive 2004/42/EC and Regulations (EC) No 765/2008 and (EU) No 305/2011 (OJ L 169, 25.6.2019, p. 1).

(52)  [Reference]

(52)  [Reference]