BETA

10 Amendments of Arlene McCARTHY related to 2011/0204(COD)

Amendment 28 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
(15) This Regulation should provide sufficient safeguards against abuse of the order. In particular, unless the creditor already has a judgment enforceable in the Member State of enforcement, the court should be able to require the creditor to provide security to ensure compensation for any damage suffered by the debtor as a result of an unjustified order. The detailed conditions under which the creditor will be liable to compensate the debtor for such damage should be governed by national law. Where the law of a Member State does not provide for a statutory liability of the claimant, this Regulation should not preclude the recourse to measures with equivalent effect, such as the obligation on the claimant to give an undertaking as to damages but Member States should ensure that provisions are in place to compensate victims of an abuse of the order.
2012/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 29 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
(17) In the event that a claimant has already obtained a judgment or other enforceable title on the substance, and in order to ensure a swift enforcement of the account preservation order, the Regulation should provide that the transmission of the order from the issuing court to the bank is effected by means of direct service as set out in Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 on the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in the Member States. This Regulation should also provide appropriate rules for the implementation of the order by the bank and oblige the bank to declare whether the order has successfully caught any funds of the debtor.
2012/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 30 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17 a (new)
(17a) In the event that a claimant has not yet obtained a judgment or other enforceable title on the substance, the account preservation order may be made the subject of minimal proportionate proceedings by the courts in the Member States where the accounts are held. Such court proceedings must be limited to that which is necessary in order to ensure adequate protection of the debtor. The debtor must not be informed of such proceedings prior to the order being implemented.
2012/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 31 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
(18) The debtor's right to a fair trial should be safeguarded in the proceedings for the account preservation order. This notably requires that the order and all documents submitted by the claimant be served on the defendant promptly after its implementation and that the defendant can apply for a review of the order. Jurisdiction for the review of the order itself should lie with the court having issued the order except if aspects of enforcement are contested. However, if the defendant is a consumer, employee or insured, he should be able to apply for a review of the order before the courts in thea Member State of his domicilwhere he holds accounts as regards enforcement of the order in that Member State. The debtor should also have the right to release the funds in the account isf he provides alternative security.
2012/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 32 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12
Before issuing an EAPO, the court mayshall require the provision of a security deposit or an equivalent assurance by the claimant to ensure compensation for any damage suffered by the defendant to the extent t. The claimant ishall be liable to compensate such damage under national lawshould the court which issued the EAPO decide, upon review, that the claimant wrongfully applied for an EAPO.
2012/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 33 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23
An EAPO issued in one Member State pursuant toin cases referred to in Article 65(2) and Article 14(1) shall be recognised and enforceable in other Member States without the need for a declaration of enforceability and without any possibility of opposing its recognition.
2012/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 35 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – title
RemediesThe right of the defendant in the Member State of originto a review of the EAPO
2012/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 36 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 3
3. The application for a review of the EAPO as it applies across the Union shall be addressed to the court which issued the order. The application shall be submitted using the form set out in Annex IV and by any means of communication, including electronic.
2012/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 37 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Without prejudice to the rights of the defendant under Article 35, a defendant may also address an application for a review of the EAPO to a court in another Member State. Any decision by a court to set aside or modify the EAPO taken under this paragraph shall be applicable only in the Member State in which that court is located.
2012/01/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 38 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36
Remedies of the defendant in the Member If the defendant is a consumer, employee or insured, he may also address the application for review under Articles 34 and 35 to the competent court in the Member State where he is domiciled to be notified to the Commission in accordance with Article 48.Article 36 deleted State of his domicile
2012/01/12
Committee: ECON