24 Amendments of Bernhard RAPKAY related to 2011/2013(INI)
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
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,
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
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;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
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 increasebeing one of the obstacles to cross-border sales,trade;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F b (new)
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);
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
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;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas any steps taken in the area of European contract law must be cohernsistent 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;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Looks forward to the publication of the Expert Group's results in order to clarify the scope and the congoing discussiontent 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;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
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;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
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;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Sees a compellingpossible 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;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Calls on the Commission to clarify the advantages of such an instrument for both consumers and businesses;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
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;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 c (new)
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;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
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, as mandatory national provnd wishes for an explanation as to how this can be achievable; calls upon the Commissions, including to bear in mind the area of consumer law, wat a satisfactory solution must be foulnd be replacedto problems of private international law;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Sees no reason why anBelieves 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 esxpecially for the SME sector; believes, however, that the effects of a domestic opt-in on national bodies of contract law merit specific analysirience has been acquired, and then only as an opt-in in cross border situations;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
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";
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
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;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Believes that the OI should be coherent with the existing acquis in contract law;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. NoteConsiders that there 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;
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
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.
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
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;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Emphasises the vital importance of involving stakeholders from throughout the Union and from different sectors of activity, including legal practitioners and recalls the Commission to undertake a wide and transparent consultation with all the stakeholders before it takes a decision based on the results of the Expert Group;