7 Amendments of Sophia IN 'T VELD related to 2011/2089(INI)
Amendment 3 #
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 continues to be a highly effective tool for deterrence; recognises however, that in an increasingly integrated single market, and with rapidly growing online trade, there is a need for an EU wide approach to consumer rights in the area of collective redress; is also convinced that private enforcement through collective redress could facilitate the compensation at EU level of harm caused to consumers and undertakings;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that forms of private enforcement already exists in mostany Member States even though many, but that the national systems are widely divergent, and many Member States do not have explicitly established specific rules on collective redress, including judicial redress; 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 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Underlines that diverging consumer rights are an obstacle to free trade and completing the internal market; points out that a well designed system for collective redress can contribute to consumer confidence, and thus to a smooth functioning internal market and online trade, boosting the competitiveness of the European economy;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Rejects any system wherebyiterates that any EU system must exclude the risk of abusive litigation and unmeritorious claims ar, for example those encouraged by the introduction of contingency fees for lawyers or the availability of punitive damages;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Suggests a principle ofthat both follow-on action, whereby private enforcement under collective redress can only be implemented if there has been a prior infringement decision by the Commission or a national competition authority, and stand alone actions should be allowed;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Member States should ensure that any potential collective action undergoes a preliminary admissibility check to confirm that the qualifying criteria have been met and that the action is fit to proceed;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Supports the development of strong EU wide instruments for Alternative Dispute Resolution, stresses however that these instruments should remain (as the name indicates) an alternative to judicial redress, not a precondition;