Activities of Klaus-Heiner LEHNE related to 2011/2013(INI)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (12)
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, in the wake of the global financial crisis, it appears more important than ever to provide a coherent European contract law regime in order to realise the full potential of the internal market and thus help meet our Europe 2020 goals,
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
Ha. whereas gradual harmonisation does not effectively overcome obstacles in the internal market resulting from diverging national contract laws,
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Favours the option of setting up an optional instrument (OI) by means of a regulation; believes that such an OI could be complemented by a ‘toolbox’ that shcould be endorsed by means of an interinstitutional agreement;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Believes that only by using the legal form of a Regulation can the necessary clarity and legal certainty be provided;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Believes that all parties, be it in B2B or B2C transactions, should be free to choose or not to choose the OI as an alternative to national or international law (opt-in) and therefore calls on the Commission to clarify the intended relationship of an OI with the Rome I Regulation and international conventions including the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG);
Amendment 76 #
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 OI must offer a very high level of consumer protection would need to be high, as mandatory national provisions, including in the area of consumer law, would be replaced; believes therefore the level of consumer protection should be higher than the minimum protection provided by the Consumer Acquis and cover as many national mandatory rules as possible; considers that this high level of consumer protection is also in the interests of businesses as they will only be able to reap the benefits of the OI if consumers of all Member States are confident that choosing the OI will not deprive them of protection;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Believes that the scope of a ‘toolbox’ could be quite broad, whereas any OI should be limited to the core contractual law issues; 1 Von Bar, Cbelieve, Schulte-Nölke et al. (eds.), Principles, Definitions and Modes that a 'toolbox' should remain coherent with the OI and contain additional Rrules of European Private Law –derived from, inter alia, the academic Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR), 2008. 2 B. Fauvarque-Cosson, D. Mazeaud (dir.), collection 'Droit privé comparé et européen' , Volumes 6 and 7, 2008.1 and the 'Principes contractuels communs' and 'Terminologie contractuelle commune'2; Or. en
Amendment 100 #
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 and based on the Principles of European Insurance Contract Law (PEICL)1, 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 1 Project Group “Restatement of European Insurance Contract Law”, status 2009, see: http://www.restatement.info. certain types of complex public law contracts;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Believes that whilst an OI will have the effect of providing a single body of law, there will still be a need to seek provision of standard terms and conditions of trade which can be produced in a simple and comprehensible form, available off-the- shelf for SMEs and with some form of trust mark system to ensure consumer confidence; notes that standard contract terms and conditions based upon an OI would offer greater legal certainty than EU-wide standard terms based upon national laws which would increase the possibility for differing national interpretations;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Recalls that further work on cross- border alternative dispute resolution (ADR), 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; notes that the UNCITRAL Working Group on Online Dispute Resolution has also shown interest in an OI as a means to facilitate ADR1 and therefore recommends that the Commission follows developments within the other international bodies;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Recalls, in accordance with Better Lawmaking principles, the need for a comprehensive and broad impact assessment, analysing different policy options, including that of not taking Union action, and focusing on both practical issues and the relative impacts of the options on national legal systems;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Insists that Parliament should be fully consulted and involved in the framework of the ordinary legislative procedure with regard to any future OI to be submitted by the European Commission;