Activities of Klaus-Heiner LEHNE related to 2008/2154(INI)
Plenary speeches (2)
White Paper on damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules (debate)
White Paper on damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules (debate)
Reports (1)
REPORT Report on the White Paper on damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules PDF (192 KB) DOC (124 KB)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (6)
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the White Paper does not consider alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to be an efficient alternative for obtaining collective redress, while acknowledging that out-of-court settlements avoid the expense, delay and uncertainty of collective litigation; whereas several Member States have introduced settlement procedures, and in particular the Dutch Collective Financial Settlement Act of 2005 could serve as a good basis for further work in this field,
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – point b
Paragraph 3 – point b
(b) lay down specific rules on evidence and investigative measures which exclude the possibility of ‘fishing expeditions’ (investigations with a view to discovering unspecified potential evidence)uphold the principle that the party bringing the infringement claim must provide evidence for their claim in order to avoid ‘fishing expeditions’ unless Member States provide for a lightening of the burden of proof;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – point c
Paragraph 3 – point c
(c) upholdmaintain the fundamental principle that costs should be borne by the unsuccessful party, possibly on the model of the Swedish system, which distinguishes between parties which bring the action (and, if they are unsuccessful, are rthe loser should pay the costs unless a Member State has established different rulesp onsible for meeting the costs thereof) and parties which ‘opt in’ at a later stage allocation of costs;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – point d
Paragraph 3 – point d
(d) obligrequire those who undertake the defence on the basirepresenting parties ofn a ‘contingency fee’ agreement to give their clients clear information about the charging of cbasis to clearly inform their clients that they will bear the costs if the action is losts in the event of the action being unsuccessfulthat a Member State provides for the possibility of contingency fee arrangements;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls for the introduction of a settlement procedure for mass claims that can be initiated either by the parties prior to commencing legal action or following an invitation by the court before which the action is brought and that has the aim of settling the dispute out-of-court by seeking judicial approval of a settlement agreement that can be declared binding upon all the victims that have opted into the procedure;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that in the event of a successful stand-alone claim a subsequent prosecution by the authorities for breach of competition law is not excluded, but that the amount of the compensation awarded must be borne in mind in calculating the fine; 1calls on the Commission and the Council with regard to the preparation of the report on the functioning of Regulation (EC) 1/2003 to incorporate the fining principles into Regulation (EC) 1/20031 and further improve and specify these principles in order to comply with general legal principles; Or. en OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1.