12 Amendments of Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI related to 2016/2011(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the report is almost two years late and does not include an extended impact assessment for each Member State as required, considering the different legal provisions in all Member States and their interoperability, but only an incomplete statistical table;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the operation of the procedure seems largely satisfactory, but the procedure is still under-usedworking greatly below its full potential;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas more should, therefore, be done to inform businesses, legal professionals, citizens and other relevant parties of the existence and advantages of the procedure through targeted awareness campaigns;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas, in certain Member States, orders should be issued more quickly and withinin order to meet the 30-day deadline set out by the regulation;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas more Member States should follow the French example and allow claimants to submit their applications in additional languages or otherwise facilitate support measures, in order to minimise error-margins resulting from the use of a foreign language;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the streamlined nature of the procedure does not mean that it can be misused to enforce unfair contractual terms and all relevant parties should be informed about rights and procedures;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas the standard forms need revising and future periodic review in order to update the list of EU Member States and currencies, and to make better provisions for the payment of interest on claims;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
Ia. whereas the costs of the judicial affairs abroad, and also the excessive length of proceedings in some Member States, to hold proceedings on the basis of the European Order for Payment is much cheaper and faster, especially in times of such intense international exchange of goods;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Regrets the lack of an extended impact assessment for each Member State in the Commission’'s report, as required by Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006, and calls on the Commission to produce an extended impact assessment for each Member State as soon as possiblewithout further delay;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that it is necessary to further inform all relevant businesses and legal professionalparties of the availability of the European Order for Payment Procedure in cross-border cases;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses the need to holdimplore Member States to account in providinge the Commission with accurate and comprehensive data for the effective monitoring and evaluation purposes;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that a future review of the regulation should look at removing certain exceptions to the scope of the procedure, which do not undermine existing law or Member States specific national competences and at revising the provisions on the review of European Orders for Payment;