Activities of Eva LICHTENBERGER related to 2011/2013(INI)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (6)
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Favours the option of setting up an optional instrument (OI) by means of a regulationUrges the Commission to undertake a thorough impact assessment before setting up an optional instrument (OI) by means of a regulation; considers that this impact assessment should include, inter alia, identification of the most suitable legal basis, social and economic impacts, coherence with existing EU, international and private law, possible systems of arbitration in cases of conflict regarding the choice and application of the optional instrument between consumers and businesses, and the level of added value for consumers and businesses of such an optional instrument; believes that such an OI could be complemented by a ‘toolbox’ that should be endorsed by means of an interinstitutional agreement;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Sees a compelling practical advantage in the flexible and voluntary nature of an opt- in instrument; calls, however, on the Commission to include in any proposal for an OI a mechanism for regular monitoring and review, with the close involvement of all parties concernedclarify the advantages of such an instrument for both consumers and businesses;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that both business-to-business andin order to cover business- to-consumer contracts should be covered; emphasises that the, a very high level of consumer protection wshould need to be high, as mandatory national provisions, including in the area of consumer law, would be replacbe ensured; calls on the Commission to draft a White Paper where legal provisions on consumer protection should be clearly defined;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Sees no reason whyBelieves that an OI should not be available as an 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, howevnd should specifically cover e-commerce transactions; consider,s that the effects of a domestic opt-in on national bodies of contract law meritscope could be eventually enlarged following a thorough and specific analysis;
Amendment 88 #
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 96 #
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, 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 certain types of complex public law contractscalls for the Expert Group to explore the possibility to include contracts in the field of authors' rights with the aim of improving the position of authors who are often the weaker party in the contractual relation;