Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the Lisbon Treaty introduced the possibility for Parliament and the Council ('the legislator') to delegate part of its own power to the Commission in a legislative act (‘the basic act’); whereas delegation is a delicate operation in which the Commission is instructed to exercise a power which is intrinsic to the legislator's own role; whereas the starting-point in examining the issue of delegation must therefore always be the freedom of the legislator; whereas according to settled case-law, the adoption of rules essential to the subject matter envisaged is reserved to the legislator, which means that the adoption of provisions requiring political decisions that fall within the responsibility of the legislator cannot be delegated; whereas a law is always essential as a matter of principle; whereas therefore that delegated power can only consist in supplementing or amending parts of a legislative act that are not essential; whereas the resulting delegated acts adopted by the Commission will be non- legislative acts of general scope; whereas the basic act must explicitly define the objective, content, scope and duration of that delegation, and must lay down the conditions to which the delegation is subject;

2013/10/01
Committee: JURI

2012/2323(INI)

Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 6 a (new)

- In acts establishing financial programmes, measures that serve to supplement the basic act with regard to specific technical provisions, strategic interests, objectives, expected results, etc. can be adopted either by the legislator or, under certain conditions and where sufficiently justified, by the Commission by means of delegated acts. Other measures that do not express any political orientation (technical arrangements for exchanging information, exchange of data, etc.) may be of implementing nature, without prejudice to confirmation by the legislator.

2013/10/01
Committee: JURI

2012/2323(INI)

Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 12

- Authorisations can be measures of general application. This is for instance the case where decisions concern the authorisation or prohibition of the inclusion of a specific substance in food, cosmetics etc. Those decisions are general because they concern any operator willing to use such substance. In such cases, if the Commission decision is fully based on criteria contained in the basic act, it should be an implementing act, provided that the legislator did not choose to keep the authorisations as an integral part of the basic act in the form of an Annex; if it adds new normative content affecting the substance of the rights and obligations and thereby adding secondary political orientation or policy choices to the basic act, thus supplementing it, it should be a delegated act.

2013/10/01
Committee: JURI

2012/2323(INI)

Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – indent 15

- Measures implying temporary deviation from the rules established by the basic act to be applied in a specific situation, under specific clearly defined conditions and for a limited period of time do not amend or supplement the basic act. They should therefore be adopted by means of implementing acts. They should therefore be adopted by means of implementing acts. However, when those measures imply a more permanent deviation from the rules established in the basic act, going beyond a limited period of time, they should be adopted by means of delegated acts.deleted

2013/10/01
Committee: JURI

2012/2323(INI)

Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Calls on the Commission in future to provide an explicit and sustainable justification of why it is proposing a delegated or implementing act in a particular legislative proposal and why it considers its regulatory content to be non- essential;

2013/10/01
Committee: JURI

2012/2323(INI)

Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4 b. Calls for clear rules governing Parliament's representation and participation and the information to be forwarded to Parliament; points, accordingly, to the political responsibility of the legislator and the need for the regular and timely involvement of the political authorities in the discussions on delegated acts;

2013/10/01
Committee: JURI

2012/2323(INI)

Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Encourages its committees to closely monitor the use of delegated and implementing acts within their respective spheres of responsibility, bundle issues together in order to develop a common approach for the whole Parliament, and at the same time preserve the necessary flexibility on the part of the committees in each individual case; recommends, to this end, that a permanent rapporteur be appointed in each committee for delegated and implementing acts; continues to call on the members of negotiating teams in particular to pay particular attention to this matter when reporting to the competent committee following each trilogue pursuant to Rule 70(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament;

2013/10/01
Committee: JURI

2012/2323(INI)

Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Calls for sufficient technical and personal resources to be assigned for delegated and implementing acts, inter alia in order to ensure an efficient internal flow of information;

2013/10/01
Committee: JURI

2012/0180(COD)

Bernhard RAPKAY

Proposal for a directive
Recital 35

(35) Broadcasting organisations generally rely on a licence from a local collecting society, for their own broadcasts of television and radio programmes which include musical works. ~~This licence is often limited to broadcasting activities.~~ A licence for online rights in musical works would be required in order to allow such television or radio broadcasts to be also available online. To facilitate the licensing of online music rights ~~for~~in the ~~purposes of simultaneous and delayed transmission online of television and radio broadcasts~~interests of online accessibility, it is necessary to provide for a derogation from the rules that would otherwise apply to the multi-territorial licensing of musical works for online uses. Such derogation should be limited to what is necessary to allow access to television or radio programmes online and ~~to material having a clear and subordinate relationship to the original broadcast produced for purposes such as supplementing, previewing or reviewing that television or radio programme~~make possible online offers connected to linear broadcasting. That derogation should not operate so as to distort competition with other services which give consumers access to individual musical or audiovisual works online, or lead to restrictive practices, such as market or customer sharing, in breach of Articles 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

2013/06/06
Committee: JURI

2012/0180(COD)

Bernhard RAPKAY

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1

Titles I, II and IV with the exception of Articles 36 and 40 shall apply to all collecting societies established in the Union and also those established outside the Union but providing services in the Union.

2013/06/06
Committee: JURI

2012/0180(COD)

Bernhard RAPKAY

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Title III shall not apply to collecting societies which distribute licences to broadcasters in accordance with national and EU law for their online offers connected to linear broadcasting.

2013/06/06
Committee: JURI

2012/0180(COD)

Bernhard RAPKAY

Proposal for a directive
Article 33 – paragraph 1

The requirements under this Title shall not apply to collecting societies which grant, on the basis of the voluntary aggregation of the required rights, in compliance with the competition rules under Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, a ~~multi-territorial~~ licence for the online rights in musical works required by a broadcaster to ~~communicate or~~ make available ~~to the public~~ its radio or television programmes ~~simultaneously with or after their initial broadcast as well as any online material produced by the broadcaster which is ancillary to the initial broadcast of its radio or television programme~~as well as any online offers connected to linear broadcasting.

2013/06/06
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the benefits of the ADR method are undisputed, fair access to justice should remain available to all EU citizens,

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)

Bb. whereas, according to the Flash Eurobarometer on "Consumer attitudes towards cross-border trade and consumer protection" of March 2011, 79% of European consumers state that they would be more willing to defend their rights in court if they could join a collective action,

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas national and European authorities play a pivotal role in the enforcement of EU law, and private enforcement ~~can~~should only supplement, but not replace, public enforcement,

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Notes the efforts made by the US Supreme Court to limit frivolous litigation and the abuse of the US class action system∗3, and stresses that Europe must refrain from introducing a US-style class action system or any system which ~~would lend itself to similar abuse~~does not respect European legal traditions;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the efforts of Member States to strengthen the rights of victims of unlawful behaviour by introducing legislation aimed at facilitating redress while avoiding an abusive litigation culture; stresses in this context that the Commission has still not put forward convincing evidence that, pursuant to the principle of subsidiarity, action is needed at EU level in order to ensure that victims of unlawful behaviour arthat the current EU regulatory framework to put an end to infringements and encourage competition fails to allow for consumers to be compensated for the damage ~~or loss~~s suffered;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Underlines the considerable benefits of collective judicial actions in terms of costs and legal certainty for the claimants, defendants and the judicial system alike by avoiding parallel litigation of similar claims;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Calls on the Commission to foster effective relief at EU level for consumers and SMEs by means of a EU-wide legal instrument on collective redress for both national and cross-border cases, on the basis of a set of common principles inspired by the EU legal tradition and the legal orders of the 27 Member States, consistent and parallel with specific sectoral legislative initiatives;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Reiterates that the Commission has still not indicated wh~~Considers that Art 114 TFEU would be the appropriate legal basis ~~it considers appropriate~~ for any measures in the field of collective redress;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that enforcement mechanisms that already exist at EU level ~~and believes that~~, in particular, Regulation No 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure ~~provides efficient and effective access to justice by~~intended to simplify~~ing~~ cross- border litigation involving claims for a sum of less than EUR 2 000 are not designed to provide effective access to justice in cases where a large number of victims suffer the same damage;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Takes the view that injunctive relief could also plays an important role in safeguarding rights which citizens and companies enjoy under EU law and believes that the mechanisms introduced under Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on Consumer Protection Cooperation∗4, as well as Directive 2009/22/EC on injunctions for the protection of consumer interests∗5, can be significantly improved so as to foster cooperation and injunctive relief in cross- border situations;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that injunctive relief should focus both on the protection of the individual interest and ~~not~~ the public interest~~, and calls for caution when widening access to justice for organisations since these should not enjoy easier access to justice than individuals~~;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Takes the view that disputes frequently cover different industry sectors and different areas of law and that victims of unlawful behaviour face the same difficulties in obtaining redress in different sectors, and is concerned that any EU initiatives in the field of collective redress will result in a fragmentation of national procedural and damages laws which will weaken and not strengthen access to justice within the EU; in the event that it is decided after due consideration that a Union scheme of collective redress is needed and desirable, asks that any proposal in the field of collective redress should take the form of a horizontal legal instrument including a set of common principles providing uniform access to justice within the EU; and specifically dealing with all the breaches of consumers' rights regardless of the policy field;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Believes that the current exploratory work on an EU scheme of collective redress should not cause further delays in adopting sector-specific legislative initiatives in the field of competition, environment or consumers' law;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Stresses that any horizontal legally binding instrument must cover ~~all~~ aspects of obtaining damages collectively; further stresses that, in particular, procedural and international private-law issues must apply to collective actions in general irrespective of the sector concerned, whereas limited sectoral rules, dealing with matters such as the potential binding effect of decisions adopted by national competition authorities in the field of EU antitrust law, should be laid down, for instance, in a separate chapter of the horizontal instrument itself;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Believes that the individual damage or loss suffered plays a pivotal role when deciding to file an action, and takes the view that in line with Regulation No 861/2007 on a European Small Claims Procedure, collective redress under a horizontal instrument could be available where the value of each individual claim does not exceed EUR 2 000;deleted

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Considers that collective action under a horizontal instrument should be permissible where the defendant and victims represented are not domiciled in the same Member State (cross-border dimension) and where the rights alleged to have been infringed are granted by EU legislation (infringement of EU law) and in case of national infringements;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 1 (new)

– the judge should maintain discretionary powers on the admissibility of collective damage claims;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 1

– ~~only a~~ representative bodyies may bring an action on behalf of a clearly identified group~~, and identification of the group members must have taken place before the claim is brought (‘opt-in procedure’)~~;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

~~7 OJ L 166, 11.6.1998, p. 51~~ 12a. Recognises, however, that the opt-in system might entail higher costs for consumers organisations and therefore calls on the Commission to consider a flexible system which will allow the largest number of victims to seek compensation, while respecting the existing European systems in line with the principle of subsidiarity but also the consumers' right to be duly informed so as to avoid their being automatically represented without their knowledge: – Member States should designate organisations qualified to bring representative actions, and European criteria are needed which clearly define these qualified entities; these criteria could be based on Article 3 of Directive 2009/22/EC on injunctions for the protection of consumer interests7but need to be further specified in order to ensure that abusive litigation is avoided; such criteria should cover, inter alia, the financial and human resources of qualifying organisations; – a class action system has to be rejected on the grounds that it is contrary to many Member States’ legal orders and violates the rights of any victim who might participate in the procedure unknowingly and yet would be bound by the court’s decision; – victims must in any case be free to seek the alternative of individual compensatory redress before a competent court; – only the actual damage sustained may be compensated: punitive damages must be prohibited; by virtue of the concept of compensation the damages awarded must be distributed to individual victims in proportion to the harm they sustained individually; by and large, contingency fees are unknown in Europe and must be rejected; – collective claimants must not be in a better position than individual claimants, and each claimant must provide evidence for his claim; an obligation to disclose documents to the claimants (‘discovery’) must remain under judicial scrutiny; – there can be no action without financial risk and Member States are to determine their own rules on a fair allocation of costs according to which the unsuccessful party must bear the costs of the other party; – the Member States should set out any conditions or guidelines on the funding of damages claims;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Stresses that many of the infringements of Union law identified by the Commission in the field of EU consumer protection measures call for the strengthening of injunctive relief*8, ~~and asks the Commission to identify the EU legislation in respect of which it is difficult to obtain compensatory redress~~while acknowledging that injunctive relief is not sufficient when victims have suffered damage and have the right to compensation;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Notes that ADR mechanisms often depend on the trader's willingness to cooperate and the availability of an effective judicial redress system would act as a strong incentive for parties to agree on out -of -court settlement, which is likely to avoid a considerable number of cases, thereby avoiding litigation;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

1 Da. whereas it is necessary to distinguish between conventional cross-border transactions and e-commerce, where specific problems exist and the transaction costs are different; whereas it is also necessary for the purposes of future impact assessments, to carefully and precisely define how transaction costs Eurobarometer 224, 2008, p. 4. are made up;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas it is clear that the application of foreign (consumer) law to cross-border transactions under the Rome-I Regulation*3 has been seen to entail considerable transaction costs for businesses, in particular for SMEs, which have been estimated at €15 000 per business and per ~~1 UK Federation of Small Businesses, Position paper on Rome I (2007). 2 OJ L 177, 4.7.2008, p. 6. 3 OJ L 177, 4.7.2008, p. 6.~~ Member State*1,

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas this needs verifying in the light of the application of Article 6(2) and Article 4(1), point (a) of the Rome-I Regulation, which allows businesses to apply their national law, bearing in mind that Rome I has only been applied since December 2009;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas such transaction costs are perceived as ~~important obstacles to cross- border trade, as confirmed by 60 % of EU retailers interviewed in 20081 , and whereas 46 % said harmonised rules would help to increase~~being one of the obstacles to cross-border ~~sales,~~trade;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Evelyn REGNER, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

~~1 Eurobarometer 224, 2008, p. 4.~~Fa. whereas the divergence of contract law at national level does not constitute the only obstacle for SMEs and consumers in respect of cross border activities since they face other problems including language barriers, different taxation systems, the question of the reliability of online traders, digital literacy, security problems etc.; Or. en

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Evelyn REGNER, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Recital F b (new)

Fb. whereas it is of paramount importance that any initiative from the EU will have to answer real needs and concerns of both businesses and consumers; whereas these concerns also extend to legal/linguistic problems (provisions of standard terms and conditions for small businesses in all EU languages) and the difficulties in enforcing contracts across borders (provisions of autonomous EU measures in the field of procedural law);

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas there is evidence that the online market remains fragmented: in a survey, 61 % of 10 964 test cross-border orders failed, inter alia because traders refused to serve the consumer's country1; whereas, on the other hand,a Commission study revealed that 61 % of 10 964 test cross-border orders failed and that cross-border shopping appears to increase consumers' chances of finding a cheaper offer*2 and of finding products not available domestically online*,3, whereas the figure of 61% seems to be very high and to warrant further study, verification and assessment;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas any steps taken in the area of European contract law must be co~~her~~nsistent with the expected Consumer Rights Directive, which will have a significant impact on the content and on the level of harmonisation of a possible future instrument in the field of European Contract Law; whereas it would be necessary to constantly and carefully monitor its implementation in the next months in order to define which should be the scope of the OI;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Evelyn REGNER, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Looks forward to the publication of the Expert Group's results in order to clarify the scope and the con~~going discussion~~tent of the OI and in order to engage in an open and transparent discussion with all stakeholders as to how these results should be used and as the Commission would consider additional options, less intrusive than the OI, for facilitating cross-border activities; calls for the creation of "European standard contracts models", translated in all EU languages, linked to an ADR system, carried out on line, which would have the advantages of being a cost-effective and simpler solution for both contractual parties and the Commission;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Favours the option 4 of setting up an optional instrument (OI) by means of a regulation after clarification of the legal basis; believes that such an OI could be complemented by a ‘toolbox’ that should be endorsed by means of an interinstitutional agreement;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Calls on the Commission to clarify the contents of the toolbox and to consider complementing the OI by "model contract terms and conditions" for small businesses, translated into all languages; further calls on the Commission to expand the range of autonomous cross- border procedural instruments so as to facilitate the enforcement of cross-border transactions;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Sees a ~~compelling~~possible practical advantage in the flexible and voluntary nature of an opt- in instrument; ~~calls, however,~~however calls on the Commission to better clarify which contracting party will have the choice between the OI and the "normally" applicable law and how the Commission intends to reduce transaction costs; calls on the Commission to include in any proposal for an OI a mechanism for regular monitoring and review, with the close involvement of all parties concerned in order to ensure that the OI keeps up with the existing acquis, with market needs and with legal and economic developments;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls on the Commission to clarify the advantages of such an instrument for both consumers and businesses;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Evelyn REGNER, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Is concerned about the confusion the additional set of rules would create for SMEs, but, in particular, for consumers, bearing in mind that in order to enforce their rights consumers have to be aware of them;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5c. Insists that the legislation creating the OI be adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure and that the optional instrument itself be subject to scrutiny and amendment under that procedure;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that both business-to-business and business-to-consumer contracts should be covered; emphasises that the level of consumer protection would need to be high, a~~s mandatory national prov~~nd wishes for an explanation as to how this can be achievable; calls upon the Commission~~s, including~~ to bear in mind th~~e area of consumer law, w~~at a satisfactory solution must be foulnd ~~be replaced~~to problems of private international law;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Sees no reason why an~~Believes that the OI should not be available ~~as an opt-in both in cross-border and domestic situations, as this would have the advantages of simplicity and cost- saving,~~in the first instance and until a sufficient esxpe~~cially for the SME sector; believes, however, that the effects of a domestic opt-in on national bodies of contract law merit specific analysi~~rience has been acquired, and then only as an opt-in in cross border situations;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Calls on the Commission and the Expert Group to clarify what is to be considered as "core contractual law issues";

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Sees benefits in an OI containing specific provisions for the most frequent types of contract, in particular for the sale of goods and provision of services; reiterates its earlier call to include insurance contracts within the scope of the OI, believing that such an instrument could be particularly useful for small-scale insurance contracts; points out that some specific issues in connection with which an OI might be beneficial have been raised, such as digital rights and beneficial ownership; considers that, on the other hand, there might be a need to exclude certain types of complex public law contracts; in any case believes that the scope of the OI should be limited in the first instance;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Believes that the OI should be coherent with the existing acquis in contract law;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. ~~Note~~Considers that the~~re seems to be a clear constituency among SMEs which is expecting benefits from an OI, with the caveat that it should be drawn up in a~~ OI should be drawn up in a simple, clear and balanced manner which makes it ~~simple and~~ attractive to use for all parties, in particular SMEs and consumers;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Recalls that further work on cross- border alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which is speedy and cost-effective in particular for SMEs and consumers, remains a priority, but emphasises that, if the parties use one body of law provided by an OI, ADR will be further facilitated; calls on the Commission to consider synergies when putting forward a proposal; ~~1 United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Report of Working Group III (Online Dispute Resolution)on the work of its twenty-second session (Vienna, 13-17 December 2010), p. 8, 10.~~

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Notes concerns that consumers seldom feel they have a choice with regard to contract terms and are confronted with a ‘take it or leave it’ situation; strongly believes that an attractive OI, by opening up business opportunities and strengthening competition, will actually broaden the overall choice available to consumers while ensuring a high level of protection; wishes however for an explanation as to how this high level of protection can be achievable and as to how, at the same time, it would be possible to make the OI attractive to business;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

Bernhard RAPKAY

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Annex II - point 2.2

2.2 Standard Tariffs with an indication of the full price of the service contracted, what is included in each tariff element (e.g. charges for access, all types of usage charges, maintenance charges), and including details of standard discounts applied and special and targeted tariff schemes.

2008/05/14
Committee: ECON

2007/0247(COD)

Bernhard RAPKAY

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Recital 44 a (new)

(44a) The continuing integration of markets within the Internal Market in electronic communications services and networks means that there will be a need for closer coordination, of the enforcement of the regulatory instruments provided for in the legal framework.

2008/05/22
Committee: ECON

2007/0247(COD)

Bernhard RAPKAY

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Recital 45 a (new)

(45a) The approach used so far to ensure uniform application of the law in the Internal Market, namely an exchange of information and experience between national regulatory authorities, has proved satisfactory. That being so, the procedure laid down for joint decision- taking pursues the objective of enhancing cooperation between national regulatory authorities. In view of the wide variety of problems with which the national regulatory authorities are faced and the often differing market conditions in the Member States, the only adequate and sufficient solution compatible with the requirements of the subsidiarity principle is one based on the use of existing decentralised powers.

2008/05/22
Committee: ECON

Bernhard RAPKAY, Hannes SWOBODA, Norbert GLANTE, Robert GOEBBELS, Atanas PAPARIZOV, Anni PODIMATA, Catherine TRAUTMANN

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. The Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council annually on the formal and practical implementation of this Directive in each Member State.

2008/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2007/0196(COD)

Bernhard RAPKAY, Hannes SWOBODA, Norbert GLANTE, Robert GOEBBELS, Atanas PAPARIZOV, Anni PODIMATA

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 2 – paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Six years after the entry into force of this Directive, the Commission shall, on the basis of public consultations, in the light of discussions with the competent authorities and after having received an opinion by the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators, report to the European Parliament and the Council on the desirability of maintaining or amending this Directive. The several versions of restructuring gas companies laid down in Articles 7a to 7d and Articles 9 and 9b of Directive 2003/55/EC shall be verified, in particular, in terms of the effectiveness of their impact on network access and the necessary investments.

2008/03/31
Committee: ITRE

2007/0195(COD)

Bernhard RAPKAY, Robert GOEBBELS

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Recital 7

(7) Only the removal of the inherent incentive for vertically integrated companies to discriminate against competitors as regards network access and investment can ensure effective unbundling. Ownership unbundling, which implies the network owner being appointed as the network operator and being independent from any supply and production interests, is ~~clearly the most~~an effective and stable way to solve the inherent conflict of interest and to ensure security of supply. For this reason, the European Parliament in its Resolution on Pprospects for the internal gas and electricity market adopted on 10 July 2007 referred to ownership unbundling at transmission level as the most effective tool to promote investments in infrastructures in a non-discriminatory way, fair access to the grid for new entrants and transparency in the market. Member States should therefore be required to ensure that the same person or persons are not entitled to exercise control, including through minority blocking rights on decisions of strategic importance such as investments, over a production or supply undertaking and, at the same time, hold any interest in or exercise any right over a transmission system operator or transmission system. Conversely, control over a transmission system operator should preclude the possibility of holding any interest in or exercising any right over a supply undertaking.

2008/03/11
Committee: ECON

2007/0195(COD)

Bernhard RAPKAY, Robert GOEBBELS

Proposal for a directive – amending act
Recital 10 a (new)

(10a) Assuming that they comply with the provisions on effective and efficient corporate unbundling, vertically integrated companies can continue to own network assets while making for effective separation of interests, provided that the network company performs all the functions of a network operator and the necessary provision is made for detailed regulation and comprehensive regulatory oversight mechanisms.

2008/03/11
Committee: ECON

Udo BULLMANN, Bernhard RAPKAY

Proposal for a directive
Article 237 – paragraph 2

2. The group support shall take the form of a declaration to the group supervisor, expressed in a legally binding document and constituting a commitment to transfer own funds eligible under Article 98(5), with the exception of reserves for the restitution of premiums, which shall fall under Article 90.

2008/06/30
Committee: ECON

Activities of Bernhard RAPKAY

Plenary speeches (46)

Reports (28)

Shadow reports (7)

Opinions (4)

Shadow opinions (2)

Amendments (412)