Níl an doiciméad seo ar fáil i do theanga féin. Roghnaítear teanga eile as na teangacha atá ar fáil.

 Innéacs 
 Ar ais 
 Ar aghaidh 
 Téacs iomlán 
Nós Imeachta : 2016/0151(COD)
Céimeanna an doiciméid sa chruinniú iomlánach
An doiciméad roghnaithe : A8-0192/2017

Téacsanna arna gcur síos :

A8-0192/2017

Díospóireachtaí :

Vótaí :

PV 18/05/2017 - 11.8
CRE 18/05/2017 - 11.8
PV 02/10/2018 - 7.7
CRE 02/10/2018 - 7.7

Téacsanna arna nglacadh :

P8_TA(2018)0364

Verbatim report of proceedings
Thursday, 18 May 2017 - Strasbourg Revised edition

11.8. Decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations: Coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services in view of changing market realities (A8-0192/2017 - Sabine Verheyen, Petra Kammerevert) (vote)
Miontuairiscí
 

- before the vote

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – Arvoisa puhemies, työjärjestyksen 59 a artiklan mukaan pyydän, että tämä mietintö palautetaan valiokuntaan. Keskustelin tänään oikeuspalvelujen kanssa: tämä mietintö, josta äänestämme nyt, ei ole sama kuin mistä äänestimme kulttuurivaliokunnassa.

Mietintö on muuttunut radikaalisti sen jälkeen. Osittain perusteluna on käytetty sitä, että oikeuspalvelu on sen jälkeen muuttanut tekstiä. En syytä tästä esittelijöitä, mutta kun oikeuspalvelussa sanotaan, että teksti ei ole enää sama, olisi mielestäni kohtuullista, että otetaan huomioon jäsenten tekemät esitykset ja teksti palautetaan valiokuntaan ja sitä viedään ajan kanssa eteenpäin.

Ei voi olla niin, että valiokunta hyväksyy tekstin ja sen jälkeen se muuttuu radikaalisti ja siitä äänestetään täällä istuntosalissa. Tässä on myös kysymys meppien oikeusturvasta. Pitää olla hyvää lainsäädäntöä eikä kiireellä juostua.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – Mr Takkula, you cannot use Rule 59 on this. You have to use Rule 190. If you want to do that you have to tell us, and then you need the support of a Group, your Group or another one, or you need 38 MEPs who support it. So my first question to you is: do you want to use Rule 190?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – Arvoisa puhemies, vaikka sitten se 190 artikla. Kysymys on siitä, että jos tänä aamuna saat tiedon, että teksti on radikaalisti eri kuin mikä on hyväksytty, en tiedä, auttavatko tässä artiklat. Mielestäni tämän talon pitää silloin katsoa, että lainsäädäntö on asianmukaista. 190 sitten.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – Mr Takkula, Rule 193 says texts adopted by Parliament shall be subject to legal-linguistic finalisation under the responsibility of the President. As far as I understand, this has been done on this text. Legal linguistic changes are fine and should be done with every text so they fit what it is supposed to mean. So if you are not asking for Rule 190, I cannot follow up on a vote or whether you have enough support on a vote about referral back to committee, so either you ask for Rule 190 or I have to continue with the vote. Please decide what you want.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – Arvoisa puhemies, päätin asian jo äskeisissä puheenvuoroissa, mutta ehkä se ei tullut tulkkauksen kautta ilmi. Pyydän kohteliaasti soveltamaan artiklaa 190.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – Now I understand you well – you want to apply Rule 190. Do you have the support of your Group? Just a second, let me go one step after the other. Do you have the support of your Group? It does not look like it. Or the support of 38 MEPs? Will those who support the request please stand up? Is it the ALDE Group? All right. We have a Group supporting the request for Rule 190 on adjournment of the vote and referral back to committee. We will now have one MEP speaking in favour and one speaking against. I will first give the floor for one minute to an MEP speaking in favour of Rule 190 and referral back to committee. Mr Dzhambazki, you have the floor.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-жо Председател, от името на групите на ECR, ALDE, EFDD и GUE, които рядко намираме допирни точки и се обединихме около идеята, основавайки се на принципите на пълна прозрачност, демократична легитимност, казваме като избрани представители в този парламент, че желаем да предотвратим щетите, които този вреден в сегашния си вид доклад би донесъл, когато се превърне в законодателство. Той е гласуван от по-малко от 3 процента от евродепутатите.

Докладът на комисията по култура и образование не успява да се справи и с двата елемента, като в същото време фрагментира, вместо да насърчава, единния цифров пазар на Европейския съюз. Докладът пропуска да постигне поставените си цели, когато става въпрос за осигуряване на равнопоставени условия на новите и старите участници на пазара.

Не на последно място, той значително разширява обхвата на настоящата директива, отправното съдържание, което е предназначен да регулира, до онлайн общностите, където хората споделят информации, идеи, лични съобщения.... (изказващият се е прекъснат от Председателя)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – Mr Dzhambazki, can you come to the end please? It was one minute but the time was set late.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR)...останалите групи, тъй като явно нямате желание да изслушате цялата обосновка, от името на ECR, ALDE, EFDD и GUE, моля гласувайте против мандата!

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – Mr Dzhambazki, there are certain rules on how we proceed in situations like this, that is why I asked you to keep to one minute. The clock was set a bit late so thank you for finishing your remark. Who is going to speak against the proposal for referral back to committee? Ms Verheyen, you have the floor also for one minute.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sabine Verheyen, Berichterstatterin. – Frau Präsidentin! Der Kollege Hannu Takkula spricht in einer Erwägung einen Punkt an, der aber im Artikel nicht geändert worden ist. In der Erwägung können wir keine gegensätzlichen Aussagen treffen zum Artikel. Insofern hat der Juristische Dienst konsequenterweise einen bestimmten Teil aus der Erwägung herausgenommen, der im Artikel nicht so widergespiegelt ist.

In der bis jetzt geltenden Richtlinie ist das advertisement für Wetten und Spiele bereits inbegriffen. Wir haben die Spiele selber, also betting und gambling aus dem Anwendungsbereich der Richtlinie herausgenommen. Dies bleibt auch so. In der Erwägung wollte Herr Takkula das advertisement hineinnehmen, aber nicht im Artikel, und deshalb hat der Juristische Dienst das herausgenommen. Das ist der Streitpunkt, der im Moment von Herrn Takkula angesprochen wurde. Ich habe heute Morgen versucht, es ihm zu erklären. Es ist so, dass der Juristische Dienst eigentlich nur das gemacht hat, was der Juristische Dienst tun soll: alles, was juristisch nicht okay ist, zu korrigieren.

Insofern spreche ich gegen diesen Antrag. Grundsätzlich hat der Ausschuss mit einer Zweidrittelmehrheit das Mandat für den Trilog so angenommen. Wenn wir hier jetzt der Meinung sind, dass der Ausschuss nicht für das Parlament sprechen darf, dann müssen wir entsprechend anders abstimmen.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – We have heard the arguments. What we are going to vote on now is just whether we postpone the vote or whether we vote on it now. Let me put it differently. The question is: are we going to postpone the vote? Is that clear to everybody? Postponement of the vote. Who is in favour of postponement? Who is against? This is a majority. It was very clear, but I will check so that we do not have any concerns here.

(The request to postpone the vote was rejected)

 
Fógra dlíthiúil - Beartas príobháideachais