BETA

10 Amendments of Françoise GROSSETÊTE related to 2011/2089(INI)

Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission’s work towards a coherent European approach to collective redress (CR); calls on the Commission to pay particular attention to consumer and SME protection; calls on the Commission, before taking any other initiatives, to submit an impact assessment based on the various options envisaged, both legislative and non-legislative, taking into account sectors of activities, legal traditions in the EU and the legal systems in the 27 Member States;
2011/07/18
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Considers that existing consumer protection provisions, such as the 2007 Regulation on small claims or the 2008 Directive on mediation in civil and commercial matters, have not yet had time to produce their full effects and should therefore be enhanced, rather than adding a new tool whose effects remain uncertain;
2011/07/18
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Considers that, before it take any further initiatives in this area, the Commission should provide evidence that European action on this matter will produce added value, in particular by measuring the precise economic impact the introduction of collective redress would have in Europe;
2011/07/18
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Emphasises the need to combine effective CRpossible CR procedures with a strong system of guaranteed legal certainty and safeguards against abusive litigation; calls on the Commission to build on Member States’ experience of CR when choosing safeguards; believes these safeguards should include:
2011/07/18
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – indent 1
– criteria limiting those bodies who can organise CR actions to those with an active interest in the matter of the action, and with a special authorisation from the competent authorities guaranteeing their competence, expertise and representative nature,
2011/07/18
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – indent 2 a (new)
– clear rules forbidding any interest in the outcome on the part of lawyers,
2011/07/18
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – indent 5 a (new)
– individual compensation only of proven material damage and absence of punitive damages (principle of full redress),
2011/07/18
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – indent 5 b (new)
– use of collective redress to be subject to exhaustion of all other entitlements to act;
2011/07/18
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that any binding measures in a legislative proposal should apply mainly to the minimum standards, giving the Member States, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, the right to decide further measures; asks, however, for the Commission also to issue voluntary guidelines for the Member States; in accordance with the principles of proportionality and procedural autonomy; points out, however, that it is extremely difficult to reconcile these principles with the introduction of strict safeguards to prevent abuses and therefore wonders whether Community action in this area is justified;
2011/07/18
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that any participation should be subject to an strict ‘opt-in’ by the affected parties; believes that any action, if ruled admissible, should b, early in the procedure; believes that , in this connection the importance of the judge’s assessment must be reaffirmed, particularly as regards the preoceded byures for a comprehensive public information campaign which must take into account the threat posed to the company’s reputation;
2011/07/18
Committee: ITRE