12 Amendments of Daniel BUDA related to 2015/2087(INL)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas in the Union, limitation rules on claims for damages vary widely between the Member States, so that no two Member States operate exactly the same basic rules of limitation; whereas also the relevant limitation is determined on the basis of various factors, including whether there are related criminal proceedings and whether the claim is considered tortious or contractual;
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas national limitation systems are thus highly complex and it can often be challenging to understand which is the applicable overall limitation, when and how limitations begin to run and how these are suspended, interrupted or extended;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas unfamiliarity with foreign rules of limitation can lead to the loss of the right to make an otherwise valid claim, or to obstacles for the victims with regard to accessing justice, in the form of additional costs and delays;
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas in the area of cross-border traffic accidents, the only cause of action already harmonised at Union level is the one established in Article 18 of the Motor Insurance Directive, enabling victims to seek compensation in their own country of residence by way of a claim for compensation brought directly against a relevant insurance undertaking or against a relevant compensation body against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles10; __________________ 10See also: judgment of 13 December 2007, FBTO Schadeverzekeringen NV v Jack Odenbreit, C-463/06, ECLI:EU:C:2007:792.
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas limitation periods for claims are essential to ensuring legal certainty and the finality of disputes; whereas, however, the defendant’s rights to legal certainty and finality of disputes should be balanced with the claimant’s fundamental rights to access to justice and to an effective remedy, and unnecessarily short limitation periods could obstruct effective access to justice across the EU;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls on the Commission to ensure thataccess to general information on Member States’ rules of limitation for claims of compensation for damages in cross-border traffic accidents, ensuring that they become available and are constantly updated on the e-Justice Portal; also calls on the Commission to assess whether it would be possible to recommend uniform limitation periods at European level;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Also calls on the Commission to undertake a study on the protection afforded in the Member States to minors and persons with a disability in respect of the running of time for limitation purposes, and on the necessity to set minimum rules at Union level to ensure that such persons do not lose their rights to claim compensation when involved in a cross- border road traffic accident and that they are guaranteed effective access to justice in the European Union;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – point 1
Annex I – part A – point 1
1. In the European Union, enforcement of law before courts remains largely the matter of national procedural rules and practice. National courts are also Union courts. It is therefore for the proceedings before them to ensure fairness, justice and efficiency as well as effective application of Union law, guaranteeing that European citizens’ rights are protected throughout the European Union.
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 5
Annex I – part B – recital 5
(5) The requirement of legal certainty and the need to do justice in individual cases are essential elements of an area of justice. Common limitation periods increasing legal certainty, ensuring that disputes are ended and contributing to an effective enforcement regime are therefore necessary to guarantee the application of that principle.
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 10
Annex I – part B – recital 10
(10) In the field of road traffic accidents, it can be very difficult for a visiting victim to get basic information about the accident from the foreign jurisdiction within a relatively short time, such as the identity of the defendant and liabilities potentially involved. It may also take considerable time to identify which claims representative or insurer should deal with the case, to collect evidence about the accident and to have any necessary documents translated.
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 11
Annex I – part B – recital 11
(11) It is not uncommon in cross-border road traffic cases for the claimant to be very close to the expiration of a time limit before negotiations can be started with the defendant. This happens most often when the overall time limit is particularly short or when there is ambiguity about the way in which the limitation period can be suspended or interrupted. The gathering of information about an accident, which occurred in a country foreign to the claimant can take considerable time. Therefore, the running of the general time limit established in the Directive should be suspended as soon as a claim is made to the insurer or the compensation body, to allow the claimant an opportunity to negotiate the settlement of the claim.
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 14
Annex I – part B – recital 14
(14) This Directive seeks to promote the fundamental rights, and takes into account the principles, and values recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and at the same time seeks to achieve the Union objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice.