21 Amendments of Bernhard RAPKAY related to 2011/2089(INI)
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
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,
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
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,
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas national and European authorities play a pivotal role in the enforcement of EU law, and private enforcement canshould only supplement, but not replace, public enforcement,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
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 abusedoes not respect European legal traditions;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
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 losss suffered;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
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;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
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;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Reiterates that the Commission has still not indicated whConsiders that Art 114 TFEU would be the appropriate legal basis it considers appropriate for any measures in the field of collective redress;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
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 byintended to simplifying 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;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
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;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
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;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
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;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
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;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
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;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
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;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 1 (new)
Paragraph 12 – indent 1 (new)
– the judge should maintain discretionary powers on the admissibility of collective damage claims;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 1
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’);
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
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 redresswhile acknowledging that injunctive relief is not sufficient when victims have suffered damage and have the right to compensation;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
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;