Nevertheless, the Commission Decision also outlines that Google's conduct would in any event have been abusive, even if comparison shopping services and merchant platforms were considered to be part of the same market: comparison shopping services would be the closest competitors in such a broader market and Google's practices have significantly distorted competition between Google's product and comparison shopping services.

14. Notes that technical simplification is essential for consumers and that to this end, having regard to the work of the Working Group Report on ‘Transparency in EU Retail Energy Markets’, the same price components should be present in the offer, the contract and the bill, and the presentation of this data should be aligned; believes that in order to make consumers more proactive in the management of energy consumption, they need to be made aware of ways to control consumption, as well as possibilities for energy savings, and energy efficiency and small-scale production; agrees with the Working Group Report in that comparison tools and websites ...[+++]can be a good tool for consumers, if run in an independent, transparent and trustworthy manner; recommends the Commission and the Member States to rollout price comparison websites and consumer-friendly information campaigns, in which local and regional governments should take an active role; welcomes the idea of verifying the accuracy and objectivity of price comparison tools by means of an on-line trust mark; calls on the Commission to explore the possibility of such a trust mark for comparison tools and websites at EU level;

8. Each Member State and Europol shall prepare annual reports on the effectiveness of the comparison of fingerprint data with EURODAC data for law enforcement access purposes, containing information and statistics on the exact purpose of the comparison, including the type of a terrorist offence or a serious criminal offence, grounds given for reasonable suspicion, number of requests for comparison, the number and type of cases which have ended in successful identifications and on the need and use made of the exceptional case of urgency as well as on those cases where that urgency was not accepted by the ex post verification carried out b ...[+++]y the verifying authority.

8. Each Member State and Europol shall prepare annual reports on the effectiveness of the comparison of fingerprint data with EURODAC data for law enforcement access purposes, containing information and statistics on the exact purpose of the comparison, including the type of a terrorist offence or a serious criminal offence, number of requests for comparison, the number and type of cases which have ended in successful identifications and on the need and use made of the exceptional case of urgency as well as on those cases where that urgency was not accepted by the ex post verification carried out by the verifying authority.

on the amended proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of 'EURODAC' for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of Regulation (EU) No [./.] (establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person) and to request comparisons with EURODAC data by Member States' law enforcement authorities and Europol for law enforcement purposes and amending Regulation (EU) No 1077/2011 establishing a European Ag ...[+++]ency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (recast)

The designated authorities and Europol should thus only request a comparison with EURODAC when they have reasonable grounds to believe that such a comparison will provide information that will substantially assist them in preventing, detecting or investigating a terrorist or other serious criminal offence.