21 Amendments of Jiří MAŠTÁLKA related to 2011/2013(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the idea of the European contract law initiative, which seeks totargeted at addressing internal market problems createdthat might be created, inter alia, by divergent bodies of contract law, has been under discussion for many years,
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas, there are other major facctording to a Commission survey of 2008, three-quarters of retailers sell only domestically, and cross-border selling often takes place s different from the existence of diverging rules of national consumer contract law that impede consumers to buy cross- border including cultural obstacles such as language, preference for physical shops, demographic composition of the population and the digital literacy; limited access to broadband; reliability of online traders; lack of choice of means of payment and discriminatory charges between the means offered; privacy concerns; post-sale services; complaint handling a few Member States only1 ,nd redress; territorial limitations of intellectual property rights; anti-competitive business practices, etc
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the application of foreign (consumer) law to cross-border transactions under the Rome-I Regulation* has been seen to entail considerable2 could entail transaction costs for businesses, in particular for SMEs, which have been estimated at €15 000 per business and per 1 UK Federation of Small Businesses, Position paper on Rome I (2007). 2 OJ L 177, 4.7.2008, p. 6. 3 UK Federation of Small Businesses, Position paper on Rome I (2007). Member State1,
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas the existing evidence does not permit to deduce that diverging national contract law represent a significant barrier to cross-border trade and therefore any measures in this field should be based on clear evidence that such a initiative would make a real difference which cannot be achieved through other less intrusive means,
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Favours the option of setting upa ‘toolbox’ that should be endorsed by an interinstitutional agreement; doubts that at the current stage an optional instrument (OI) adopted by means of a regulation; believes that such an OI could be complemented by a ‘toolbox’ that should be endorsed by means of an interinstitutional agreement; would be the appropriate means to address any of the perceived problems in cross- border trading ;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that a ‘toolbox’ could possibly be put into practice step-by-step, starting as a Commission tool, and being converted, once agreed between the institutions, into a tool for the Union legislator; points out that any ‘toolbox’ would provide the necessary legal backdrop and underpinning against which an OI could operate; used for business-to- consumer contracts should be based on an assessment of the national mandatory rules of consumer protection within but also outside the existing consumer law acquis and should provide the necessary specificities of consumer contracts at a genuinely high level of protection;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that bothonly business-to-business and business-to-consumer contracts shwould be covered; emphasise by a potential European contract law instrument; considers that the level of consumer protection would needs to be very high, as mandatory national provisions, including in the area of consumer law, would be replacednd that it should not be designed to replace national mandatory provisions, in particular regarding consumer contract law;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Sees no reason why an OI should not beWorries that an OI available as anfor opt-in both in cross-border and domestic situations, as this would have the advantages of simplicity and cost- saving, especially for the SME sector; believes, however, or only cross-border situations, would further complicate the legal environment, especially for the SME sector and for consumers, whereas its domestic application could oblige consumers that do not want to buy cross- border to conclude a contract under a extraneous regime; believes, consequently that the effects of a domestic opt-in on national bodies of contract law meritcall for specific analysis and caution;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Acknowledges that e-commerce or distance-selling contracts account for an important share of cross-border transactions; believes, however, that an OI should not be limited to these types of transaction;
Amendment 92 #
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 and that its recommendations on consumer contractual law issuesshould be based on a genuinely high level of protection;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Sees benefits in an OI "toolbox" for contract law 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 incluconsider insurance contracts within the scope of the OI, 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;but considers that, on the other hand, there might be a need to exclude certain types of complex public law contracts;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes that according to the re seems to be a clear constituency among SMEs which is expecting benefits from an OI, with the caveat that it should be drawn up in a manner which makes it simple and attractive to use fsponses to the recent Commission consultation, many business and consumers organisations are highly sceptical about any alleged advantages of an OI but would support all parties toolbox option;
Amendment 109 #
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, thereother alternatives should be considered as wiell still be a need to seekuch as the 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 consumers with some form of trust mark system to ensure consumer confidence and most importantly for business-to-consumer contracts, linked to an on-line alternative dispute mechanism;
Amendment 113 #
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;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Suggests that lack of confidence inthe non-existence of functioning and efficient cross-border redress systems cshould be further tackled by a direct linkage between the OIa potential European contract law initiative and the European Order for Payment Procedure and the European Small Claims Procedure;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Appreciates that both expert and stakeholder groups already have a varied geographical and sectoral background; believes that stakeholder contributions will become even more important once the consultation phase is over and if the legislative procedure as such, which willould need to be as inclusive and transparent as possible, is launched;