4 Amendments of Andreas MÖLZER related to 2011/2089(INI)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes, as regards the competition sector, that the most effective tool for deterrence continues to be public enforcement by the Commission and national competition authorities; is also convinced that private enforcement through collective rbetter information about existing claim proceduress could facilitate the compensation at EU and Member State level of harm caused to consumers and undertakings;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. NotStresses that private enforcement already exists in most Member States even though many do not have explicitly established specific rules on collective redress, and expects the European system to be based on the experiences of the Member States with their systems of collective enforcement; recalls that only Member States have the competence to legislate on the rules applicable for quantifying the amount of compensation that can be awarded;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Rejects any system – particularly any which permits collective action (opt-out) – whereby abusive litigation and unmeritorious claims are encouraged by the introduction of contingency fees for lawyers or the availability of punitive damages; calls for a thorough and objective analysis of whether this can genuinely be ensured by means of the system;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that the leniency policy is an essential tool for uncovering cartels; emphasisefears that collective redress should nomight compromise the effectiveness of the leniency programme and of the settlement procedure; underlines, therefore, that any legislative instrument applicable to collective redress must fully respect the specificities of the antitrust sector;