320 Amendments of Antonio MASIP HIDALGO
Amendment 4 #
2013/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas a non-binding comparative exercise has the merits of identifying successes and shortcomings and enablingimprovements and backward steps and of striving towards the exchange of best practices across the Union while leaving the autonomy of national legal and judicial systems untouched;
Amendment 10 #
2013/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomesTakes note of the EU Justice Scoreboard, and congratulates the Commission thereon; calls on the Commission to take this exercise forward in line with the Treaties and in consultation with Member States;
Amendment 20 #
2013/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. LaudsTakes note of the efforts of the Commission to provide measurable data, but considers that some goals, such as the impartiality and the quality of justice, cannot be measured easily;
Amendment 26 #
2013/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Member States to examine the results of the 2013 Justice Scoreboard closely and to determine whether any consequences need to be drawn therefrom for the organisation and progress of their respective civil, commercial and administrative justice systems;
Amendment 33 #
2013/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. States its interest in receiving data on cross-border cases, which often involve a greater degree of complexity than purely domestic cases and demonstrate the obstacles that EU citizens face when exercising their rights deriving from the EU single market, particularly in the application of EU law;
Amendment 36 #
2013/2117(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Recalls the role of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) in gathering the relevant data at regional level, and the leading role of the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters in facilitating access to knowledge on EU and national law in this field;
Amendment 48 #
2013/0119(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) The scope of this Regulation should cover public documents drawn up by authorities of the Member States and having formal evidentiary value relating to birth, death, nameentered in civil status registers (birth certificates, death certificates, marriage orand registered partnership, parenthood, adoption, residence, citizenship, nationality, real estate, legal status and representation of a company or other undertaking, intellectual property rights and absence of a certificates, etc.) and documents entered in other public registers, such as the population register and intellectual property registers, as well as information extracted from the criminal record. Simplification of the acceptance of these categories of public documents between the Member States should bring tangible benefits to Union citizens and companies or other undertakings. Because of their different legal nature, documents drawn up by private persons should be excluded from its scope. Documents drawn up by authorities of third countries should likewise fall outside the scope of this Regulation.
Amendment 68 #
2013/0119(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – point 1
Article 3 – point 1
(1) "public documents" means documents issued by authorities of a Member State and having formal evidentiary value relating to: (a) birth; (b) death; (c) name, i.e.: (a) birth certificates; (b) death certificates; (c) change of name certificates; (d) marriage and registered partnership certificates; (e) parenthood documents; (f) adoption; (g) residence documents; (g) extracts from population registers; (h) documents relating to citizenship and nationality; (i) real estate; (j) legal status and representation of a company or other undertaking; (k) intellectual property rights; (l) absence of ak) extracts from intellectual property registers; (l) information extracted from the criminal record;
Amendment 54 #
2013/0089(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) In order to enable proprietors of registered trade marks to fight counterfeiting more effectively, they should be entitled to prohibit the affixing of an infringing trade mark to goods and certainall preparatory acts prior to the affixing.
Amendment 57 #
2013/0089(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) Trade marks fulfil their purpose of distinguishing goods or services and allowing consumers to make informed choices only when they are actually used on the market. A requirement of use is also necessary in order to reduce the total number of trade marks registered and protected in the Union and, consequently, the number of conflicts which arise between them. It is therefore essential to require that registered trade marks must actually be used in connection with the goods or services for which they are registered, or, if not used within five years of the date of registration, must be liable to be revoked.
Amendment 62 #
2013/0089(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Directive 2008/95/EC
Article 2
Article 2
A trade mark may consist of any signs, in particular words, including personal names, designs, models, motifs, devices and logos, letters, numerals, colours as such, the shape of goods or of their packaging, or sounds, provided that such signs are capable of:
Amendment 68 #
2013/0089(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 6
Article 4 – paragraph 6
6. Any Member State may provide that pParagraph 5 shall also apply where the distinctive character was acquired after the date of application for registration and before the date of registration.
Amendment 70 #
2013/0089(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) if it is identical with, or similar to, an earlier trade mark irrespective of whether the goods or services for which it is applied or registered are identical with, similar to or not similar to those for which the earlier trade mark is registered, where the earlier trade mark has a reputation in a substantial part of the territory of the Union, which may lie within a single Member State or, in case of a European trade mark, has a reputation in the Union and the use of the later trade mark without due cause would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark;
Amendment 86 #
2013/0088(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) In order to enable proprietors of European trade marks to fight counterfeiting more effectively, they should be entitled to prohibit the affixing of an infringing mark to all goods and preparatory acts prior to the affixing.
Amendment 99 #
2013/0088(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
Article 4 – introductory part
Article 4 – introductory part
A European trade mark may consist of any signs, in particular words, including personal names, designs, models, motifs, devices and logos, letters, numerals, colours as such, the shape of goods or of their packaging, or sounds, provided that such signs are capable of:
Amendment 109 #
2013/0088(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 12
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) the sign is identical with, or similar to, the European trade mark irrespective of whether it is used in relation to goods or services which are identical with, similar to or not similar to those for which the European trade mark is registered, where the latter has a reputation in a substantial part of the territory of the Union and where use of that sign without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the European trade mark.
Amendment 131 #
2013/0088(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 28
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 28
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
Article 28 a (new)
Article 28 a (new)
Article 28 a Fees The registration and renewal of a European trade mark shall be subject to an additional fee for each class of goods and services below the first class.
Amendment 139 #
2013/0088(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 46
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 46
2a. Paragraph 2 shall also apply where the distinctive character was acquired after the date of application for registration and before the date of registration.
Amendment 52 #
2013/0025(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) for providers of gambling servicecasinos, when carrying out occasional transactions amounting to EUR 2 000 or more, whether the transaction is carried out in a single operation or in several operations which appear to be linked; for on-line gambling when establishing the business relationship; for other providers of gambling services, regarding the payment of prizes amounting to EUR 2 000 or more.
Amendment 296 #
2013/0025(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) for casino providers of gambling services, when carrying out occasional transactions amounting to EUR 2 000 or more, whether the transaction is carried out in a single operation or in several operations which appear to be linked; in the case of online gambling, when establishing a business relationship; for other providers of gambling services, when paying out prizes amounting to EUR 2 000 or more;
Amendment 158 #
2012/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Amendment 160 #
2012/2145(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27a. Recalls the European Parliament resolution of 25 November 2010 on the situation in Western Sahara; urges Morocco and the Polisario Front to continue negotiation for a peaceful and long-lasting solution of the Western Sahara conflict and reiterates the rights of the Sahrawi people to self determination which should be decided through a democratic referendum, in accordance with the relevant United Nations resolutions; condemns the ongoing violation of the human rights of the Sahrawi people; calls for the release of the Sahrawi political prisoners;
Amendment 7 #
2012/2098(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses the importance of support for innovative solutions enabling businesses to address social and environmental challenges such as the introduction of smart transport systems and eco-efficient and accessible which are designed for all products;
Amendment 32 #
2012/2098(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls on public authorities to provide support for CSR promotional activities carried out by SME intermediary organisations, inter alia through smart, targeted use of structural funding, for instance, for promoting the labour integration of disfavoured groups, such as people with disabilities;
Amendment 8 #
2012/0022(APP)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point iv – modification 8 a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point iv – modification 8 a (new)
Amendment 4 #
2011/2176(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Acknowledges that the establishment of a coherent patent litigation system in the Member States taking part in the enhanced cooperation should be accomplished by an international agreement (‘the Agreement’) between these Member States (‘Contracting Member States’) creating a Unified Patent Court (‘the Court’); nevertheless expresses doubt, in the light of various texts, such as Opinion 1/09 of the European Court of Justice, as to whether that international agreement is compatible with the TFEU;
Amendment 7 #
2011/2176(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 – point ii
Paragraph 7 – point ii
(ii) the Agreement should come into force when a minimum of ninll the Contracting Member States, including the three Member States in which the highest number of European patents was in force in the year preceding the year in which the Diplomatic Conference for the signature of the Agreement takes place, have ratified the Agreement and when Regulation XXX of the European Parliament and of the Council implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection and Council Regulation XXX implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements are in force;
Amendment 8 #
2011/2176(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 – point iii
Paragraph 7 – point iii
(iii) the Court should be a Court common to the Contracting Member States and subject to the same obligations as any national court with regard to compliance with Union law; thus, for example, the Court shall cooperate with the Court of Justice by applying Article 267 TFEUin line with Opinion 1/09 of the Court of Justice of the European Union, national courts should have jurisdiction to hear actions based on EU law and be able to refer questions for a preliminary ruling;
Amendment 10 #
2011/2176(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 – point iv
Paragraph 7 – point iv
(iv) the Court should act in line with the body of Union law and respect its primacy; in the event that the Court of Appeal infringes Union law, Contracting Member States should be jointly liable for damages incurred by the parties to the respective procedure; infringement proceedings pursuant to Articles 258, 259 and 260 TFEU against all Contracting Member States should apply, as set out in the TFEU;
Amendment 13 #
2011/2176(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 – point i
Paragraph 10 – point i
(i) acknowledges that the composition of the Court of Appeal and the Court of First Instance should be multinational; considers that the composition must be adapted to the existing court structures; proposes, therefore, that the composition of the local divisions should become multinational after a transitional period of five years, while it has to be ensured that the standard of quality and efficiency of the existing structures is not reduced; considers that the period of five years should be used for intensive training and prepar from the outset, and that the entry into force of the Agreement must allow sufficient time for the implementation ofor the judgessystem;
Amendment 15 #
2011/2176(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 – point ii
Paragraph 10 – point ii
(ii) believes that the Court should be composed of both legally qualified and technically qualified judges; the judges should ensure the highest standards of competence and proven capacity in the field of patent litigation and antitrust law; this qualification should be proven inter alia by relevant work experience and professional training; legally qualified judges should possess the qualifications required for judicial offices in a Contracting Member Statebe national judges; technically qualified judges should have a university degree and expertise in a field of technology as well as knowledge of civil and civil procedural law;
Amendment 16 #
2011/2176(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – point ii
Paragraph 11 – point ii
(ii) the proceedings before the Court, consisting of a written, interim and oral procedure, should be dealt with by the Court in a flexible mannerall incorporate the appropriate elements of flexibility, taking into account the objectives of speed and efficiency of proceedings;
Amendment 17 #
2011/2176(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 – point iii
Paragraph 11 – point iii
(iii) the language of proceedings before any local or regional division should be the official language of the Contracting Member State hosting the division or the official language designated by the Contracting Member States sharing a regional division; the parties should be free to chose the language in which the patent was granted as the language of proceedings subject to the approval of the competent division; the language of proceedings before the central division should be the language in which the patent concerned was granted; the language of proceedings before the Court of Appeal should be the language of proceedings before the Court of First Instance; at the duly justified request of one of the parties in the main proceedings, and after hearing the other parties, the court may decide that the language of proceedings shall be English; within a reasonable period of time, the language of the proceedings should always be English; . es
Amendment 21 #
2011/2176(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point i
Paragraph 12 – point i
(i) the Court should have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of European patents with unitary effect and European patents designating one or more Contracting Member States; this will necessitate the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 44/20011;
Amendment 22 #
2011/2176(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point ii
Paragraph 12 – point ii
(ii) the plaintiff should bring the action 1 OJ L 307, 24.11.2001, p. 28 before the local division hosted by a Contracting Member State where the infringement has occurred or may occur, or where the defendant is domiciled or established, or to the regional division in which this Contracting Member State participates; if the Contracting Member State concerned does not host a local division and does not participate in a regional division, the plaintiff shall bring the action before the central division; the parties should be free to agree before which division of the Court of First Instance (local, regional or central) an action may be brought;
Amendment 23 #
2011/2176(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point iii
Paragraph 12 – point iii
(iii) in case of a counterclaim for revocation, the local or regional division should have the discretion to proceed with the infringement proceeding independently of whether the division proceeds as well with the counterclaim or whether it refers the counterclaim to the central divisionand shall also take cognizance of the counterclaim;
Amendment 24 #
2011/2176(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – point vi
Paragraph 12 – point vi
(vi) the relationship between the Agreement and Regulation (EC) No 44/20011 should be clarified in the Agreement*; it should be borne in mind that owing to the primacy of EU law and since the EU has sole competence for such matters, all these rules must be introduced by way of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001;
Amendment 25 #
2011/2176(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Is of the opinion that the Court should base its decisions on Union law in all the applicable fields, the Agreement, the European Patent Convention (EPC) and national law having been adopted in accordance with the EPC, provisions of international agreements applicable to patents and binding on all the Contracting Member States and national law of the Contracting Member States in the light of Union law to be implemented; 1 Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I), and that for all matters for which the Member States are competent, this list should be clarified and applicability criteria established in order to ensure the legal certainty and predictability of the actions of the courts; Or. es
Amendment 1 #
2011/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A (new)
Recital A (new)
A. whereas the recent financial crisis has called the work of auditors into question,
Amendment 2 #
2011/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B (new)
Recital B (new)
B. whereas quality auditing is fundamental for economic stability and market confidence, since it provides guarantees concerning the genuine financial health of companies,
Amendment 3 #
2011/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C (new)
Recital C (new)
C. whereas the auditor's independence plays a fundamental part in the quality of auditing,
Amendment 4 #
2011/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D (new)
Recital D (new)
D. whereas, consequently, an in-depth debate needs to be relaunched on the function of the auditor and the structure of the audit market,
Amendment 34 #
2011/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Believes that the system of qualifications in audit reports should not be reassessed, since it fulfils a dissuasive function and contributes to the quality of financial information;
Amendment 38 #
2011/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Supports the generalised and mandatory introduction of the International Standards on Auditing (ISA), clarified through a regulation, which would make it possible to harmonise audits at European level and facilitate the task of supervisory bodies; takes the view that auditing is a single procedure, regardless of the size of the audited company, but its application needs to be adapted to the characteristics of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs);
Amendment 80 #
2011/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Supports the creation of an international code of good governance for auditing firms that audit public interest entities;
Amendment 81 #
2011/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)
Paragraph 16 b (new)
16b. Believes that the partnership model is the appropriate one for audit firms, since it protects their independence;
Amendment 82 #
2011/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 c (new)
Paragraph 16 c (new)
16c. Supports the Green Paper's proposals on group audits;
Amendment 83 #
Amendment 84 #
2011/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 d (new)
Paragraph 16 d (new)
16d. Calls on the Commission to submit a proposal to strengthen communication between the auditor of public interest entities and the regulatory authorities;
Amendment 85 #
2011/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 e (new)
Paragraph 16 e (new)
16e. Believes that communication and confidentiality protocols should be laid down and the dialogue should operate in both directions;
Amendment 114 #
2011/2037(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Urges the Commission to come forward with proposals aiming to enhance harmonisation as a way of creating a European passport for auditors, placing particular emphasis on everything that guarantees the auditor's independence;
Amendment 9 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Amendment 11 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas it is clear that the application of foreign (consumer) law to cross-border transactions under the Rome-I Regulation*3 has been seen to entail considerable 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 OJ L 177, 4.7.2008, p. 6. Member State*1,
Amendment 14 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas this needs verifying in the light of the application of Article 6(2) and Article 4(1), point (a) of the Rome-I Regulation, which allows businesses to apply their national law, bearing in mind that Rome I has only been applied since December 2009;
Amendment 18 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas such transaction costs are perceived as important obstacles to cross- border trade, as confirmed by 60 % of EU retailers interviewed in 20081 , and whereas 46 % said harmonised rules would help to increasebeing one of the obstacles to cross-border sales,trade;
Amendment 19 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Amendment 20 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F b (new)
Recital F b (new)
Fb. whereas it is of paramount importance that any initiative from the EU will have to answer real needs and concerns of both businesses and consumers; whereas these concerns also extend to legal/linguistic problems (provisions of standard terms and conditions for small businesses in all EU languages) and the difficulties in enforcing contracts across borders (provisions of autonomous EU measures in the field of procedural law);
Amendment 22 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas there is evidence that the online market remains fragmented: in a survey, 61 % of 10 964 test cross-border orders failed, inter alia because traders refused to serve the consumer's country1; whereas, on the other hand,a Commission study revealed that 61 % of 10 964 test cross-border orders failed and that cross-border shopping appears to increase consumers' chances of finding a cheaper offer*2 and of finding products not available domestically online*,3, whereas the figure of 61% seems to be very high and to warrant further study, verification and assessment;
Amendment 31 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas any steps taken in the area of European contract law must be cohernsistent with the expected Consumer Rights Directive, which will have a significant impact on the content and on the level of harmonisation of a possible future instrument in the field of European Contract Law; whereas it would be necessary to constantly and carefully monitor its implementation in the next months in order to define which should be the scope of the OI;
Amendment 33 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Looks forward to the publication of the Expert Group's results in order to clarify the scope and the congoing discussiontent of the OI and in order to engage in an open and transparent discussion with all stakeholders as to how these results should be used and as the Commission would consider additional options, less intrusive than the OI, for facilitating cross-border activities; calls for the creation of "European standard contracts models", translated in all EU languages, linked to an ADR system, carried out on line, which would have the advantages of being a cost-effective and simpler solution for both contractual parties and the Commission;
Amendment 36 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Favours the option 4 of setting up an optional instrument (OI) by means of a regulation after clarification of the legal basis; believes that such an OI could be complemented by a ‘toolbox’ that should be endorsed by means of an interinstitutional agreement;
Amendment 44 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Calls on the Commission to clarify the contents of the toolbox and to consider complementing the OI by "model contract terms and conditions" for small businesses, translated into all languages; further calls on the Commission to expand the range of autonomous cross- border procedural instruments so as to facilitate the enforcement of cross-border transactions;
Amendment 63 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Sees a compellingpossible practical advantage in the flexible and voluntary nature of an opt- in instrument; calls, however,however calls on the Commission to better clarify which contracting party will have the choice between the OI and the "normally" applicable law and how the Commission intends to reduce transaction costs; calls 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 concerned in order to ensure that the OI keeps up with the existing acquis, with market needs and with legal and economic developments;
Amendment 66 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Calls on the Commission to clarify the advantages of such an instrument for both consumers and businesses;
Amendment 67 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Is concerned about the confusion the additional set of rules would create for SMEs, but, in particular, for consumers, bearing in mind that in order to enforce their rights consumers have to be aware of them;
Amendment 68 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Insists that the legislation creating the OI be adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure and that the optional instrument itself be subject to scrutiny and amendment under that procedure;
Amendment 75 #
2011/2013(INI)
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 level of consumer protection would need to be high, as mandatory national provnd wishes for an explanation as to how this can be achievable; calls upon the Commissions, including to bear in mind the area of consumer law, wat a satisfactory solution must be foulnd be replacedto problems of private international law;
Amendment 83 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Sees no reason why anBelieves that the 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,in the first instance and until a sufficient esxpecially for the SME sector; believes, however, that the effects of a domestic opt-in on national bodies of contract law merit specific analysirience has been acquired, and then only as an opt-in in cross border situations;
Amendment 94 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Calls on the Commission and the Expert Group to clarify what is to be considered as "core contractual law issues";
Amendment 98 #
2011/2013(INI)
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 contracts; in any case believes that the scope of the OI should be limited in the first instance;
Amendment 101 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Believes that the OI should be coherent with the existing acquis in contract law;
Amendment 103 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. NoteConsiders that there 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 OI should be drawn up in a simple, clear and balanced manner which makes it simple and attractive to use for all parties, in particular SMEs and consumers;
Amendment 115 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Recalls that further work on cross- border alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which is speedy and cost-effective 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; 1 United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Report of Working Group III (Online Dispute Resolution)on the work of its twenty-second session (Vienna, 13-17 December 2010), p. 8, 10.
Amendment 121 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Notes concerns that consumers seldom feel they have a choice with regard to contract terms and are confronted with a ‘take it or leave it’ situation; strongly believes that an attractive OI, by opening up business opportunities and strengthening competition, will actually broaden the overall choice available to consumers while ensuring a high level of protection; wishes however for an explanation as to how this high level of protection can be achievable and as to how, at the same time, it would be possible to make the OI attractive to business;
Amendment 125 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Emphasises the vital importance of involving stakeholders from throughout the Union and from different sectors of activity, including legal practitioners and recalls the Commission to undertake a wide and transparent consultation with all the stakeholders before it takes a decision based on the results of the Expert Group;
Amendment 25 #
2011/0901B(COD)
Draft regulation
Recital 9 a (new)
Recital 9 a (new)
(9a) In accordance with Article 19(2) TEU, the General Court should include at least one Judge per Member State. The additional Judges should be appointed on the basis of their professional and personal suitability taking into account the legal systems of the Member States and the European Union;
Amendment 193 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point 33 a (new)
Article 2 – point 33 a (new)
Conditions of Employment
Article 126 – paragraph 1
Article 126 – paragraph 1
33a. Article 126(1) shall be replaced by the following: '1. The accredited parliamentary assistant shall be classified by grade via a fair system in accordance with the indication given by the Member or Members whom the assistant will support, in accordance with their certified qualifications and the implementing measures referred to in Article 125(1). In order to be classified in grades 14 to 19, as set out in Article 133, accredited parliamentary assistants shall be required, as a minimum, to have a university degree or equivalent professional experience.
Amendment 195 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point 33 b (new)
Article 2 – point 33 b (new)
Conditions of Employment
Article 126 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 126 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
In Article 126(1), the following subparagraph shall be added: 'By way of derogation from Article 9, the arrangements relating to the autonomous representation of accredited parliamentary assistants shall be laid down by the implementing measures referred to in Article 125(1) taking into account that a formal link shall be established between the statutory representation of staff and the autonomous representation of assistants.';
Amendment 199 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point 33 e (new)
Article 2 – point 33 e (new)
Conditions of Employment
Article 131 – paragraph 2
Article 131 – paragraph 2
33e. Article 131(2) shall be replaced by the following: '2. The weekly working hours of an accredited parliamentary assistant shall be set by the Member, but for full time accredited parliamentary assistants these shall, in normal circumstances, range from 40 to 42 hours per week. The second and fourth paragraphs of Article 55 of the Staff Regulations shall apply by analogy.';
Amendment 202 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point 33 h (new)
Article 2 – point 33 h (new)
Conditions of Employment
Article 132 a (new)
Article 132 a (new)
33h. The following Article 132a shall be inserted: 'Article 132a In accordance with the implementing measures referred to in Article 125(1), the Articles 5, 6 and 9 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations (reimbursement of expenses incurred by him on taking up appointment, transfer or leaving the service) shall apply by analogy to accredited parliamentary assistants who are appointed with a contract of a minimum period of 2,5 years, whereas Articles 7(1), 7(2), first subparagraph, and 8(1), 8(2) shall apply by analogy to accredited parliamentary assistants who are appointed with a contract of a minimum period of 1 year.';
Amendment 204 #
2011/0455(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point 33 i (new)
Article 2 – point 33 i (new)
Conditions of Employment
Article 139 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 139 – paragraph 3 a (new)
33i. The following paragraph shall be inserted in Article 139: '3a. Where the contract ceases pursuant to paragraphs 1(d), 1(e) and 3, the procedure to be followed shall guarantee observance of the rights of defence of accredited parliamentary assistants and the duty to protect employees. In accordance with the implementing measures referred to in Article 125(1), this procedure shall cover all the different stages from the probationary period before recruitment to the steps to be followed for a duly justified dismissal.';
Amendment 43 #
2011/0389(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 2 – point a
Article 1 – point 2 – point a
Directive 2006/43/EC
Article 2 – point 1 – point c
Article 2 – point 1 – point c
(c) voluntarily conducted by small undertakings;
Amendment 69 #
2011/0389(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 3 – point b – point iii
Article 1 – point 3 – point b – point iii
Directive 2006/43/EC
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 95 #
2011/0389(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 11 – point a
Article 1 – point 11 – point a
Directive 2006/43/EC
Article 22 – paragraph 1
Article 22 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that when carrying out a statutory audit, the statutory auditor and/or the audit firm and any holder of voting rights in the audit firm is independent of the audited entity and is not involved in the decision-taking of the audited entity. or in the provision of any non-audit services.
Amendment 155 #
2011/0389(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – point 20
Article 1 – point 20
Directive 2006/43/EC
Article 43 b– paragraph 3
Article 43 b– paragraph 3
For the purposes of this Article, a “limited reviewassurance engagement” means a procedure undertaken by a statutory auditor or audit firmprofessional or firm that has the qualifications as defined and recognised by Member states, with a view to detecting misstatements due to error or fraud in the financial statements of an entity and which provides a lower level of assurance than statutory audit.
Amendment 155 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. A statutory auditor or a key audit partner who carries out a statutory audit of a public-interest entity on behalf of an audit firm shall not, before a period of at least twofive years has elapsed since he or she resigned as a statutory auditor or key audit partner from the audit engagement, take up any of the following duties:
Amendment 164 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. 2. When the statutory auditor or audit firm provides to the audited entity related financial audit services, as referred to in Article 10(2), the fees for such services, other than fees for such of those services which are required by law, shall be limited to no more than 105 % of the fees paid by the audited entity for the statutory audit. In case of joint audit, every audit firm will be allow to provide related financial audit services up to a limit of 20% of the total turnover of the audit services.
Amendment 180 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
A statutory auditor or an audit firm carrying out statutory audit of public- interest entities may provide to the audited entity, to its parent undertaking and to its controlled undertakings statutory audit services and related financial audit services, as far as they do not affect its independence.
Amendment 214 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) It is also important that the role of the audit committee in the selection of a new statutory auditor or audit firm be reinforced, for the benefit of a more informed decision of the general meeting of shareholders or members of the audited entity. Hence, when making a proposal to the general meeting, the board should explain whether it follows the recommendation of the audit committee and, if not, why. The recommendation of the audit committee should include at least two possible choices for the audit engagement and a duly justified preference for one of them, so that the general meeting can make a real choice. In order to provide a fair and proper justification in its recommendation, the audit committee should use the results of a mandatory selection procedure organised by the audited entity, under the responsibility of the audit committee. In such selection procedure, the audited entity should invite statutory auditors or audit firms, including smallernon-dominant ones, to present proposals for the audit engagement. Tender documents should contain transparent and non- discriminatory selection criteria to be used for the evaluation of proposals. Considering, however, that this selection procedure could entail disproportionate costs for companies with reduced market capitalisation or small and medium-sized public-interest entities having regard to their dimension, it is appropriate to relieve such entities from this obligation.
Amendment 221 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) The appointment of more than one statutory auditor or audit firm by the public-interest entities would reinforce the professional scepticism and contribute to increasing audit quality. Also, this measure combined with the presence of smallernon- dominant audit firms would facilitate the development of the capacity of such firms, thus contributing to increasing the choice of statutory auditors and audit firms for public-interest entities. Therefore, the latter should be encouraged and incentivised to appoint more than one statutory auditor or audit firm to carry out the statutory audit.
Amendment 246 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) Member States may exempt public interest entities which have not issued transferable securities admitted to trading on a regulated market within the meaning of point 14 of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC and their statutory auditor(s) or audit firm(s) from one or more of the requirements of this regulation.
Amendment 252 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
(1a) Where a cooperative within the meaning of Article 2(14) of Directive 2006/43/EC, a savings bank or a similar entity as referred to in Article 45 of Directive 86/635/EEC, a subsidiary or a legal successor of a cooperative, a savings bank or a similar entity as referred to in Article 45 of Directive 86/635/EEC is required or permitted under national provisions to be a member of a non-profit- making auditing entity, an objective, reasonable and informed party would not conclude that the membership-based relationship compromises the statutory auditor's independence, provided that when such an auditing entity is conducting a statutory audit of one of its members, the principles of independence laid down in this Chapter are applied to the auditors carrying out the audit and those persons who may be in a position to exert influence on the statutory audit.
Amendment 268 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 2
Article 9 – paragraph 2
2. When the statutory auditor or audit firm provides to the audited entity related financial audit services, as referred to in Article 10(2), the fees for such services, other than fees for such of those services which are required by law, shall be limited to no more than 105% of the fees paid by the audited entity for the statutory audit. In case of joint audit, every audit firm will be allow to provide related financial audit services up to a limit of 20% of the total turnover of the audit services.
Amendment 276 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Where Article 37 (2) of Directive 2006/43/EC applies paragraph 2 and 3 of this Article shall not apply.
Amendment 313 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 – introductory part
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 – introductory part
For the purposes of this Article, non-audit services shall mean: expert services unrelated to the audit, general management and other advisory services such as:
Amendment 320 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 – point a – point i
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 – point a – point i
(i) expert services unrelated to the audit, tax consultancy, general management and other advisory servicestax consultancy;
Amendment 325 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 – point a – point iv
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 – point a – point iv
(iv) valuation services, providing fairness opinions or contribution-in-kind reports, where the valuation would have a material effect, separately or in the aggregate, on the financial statements;
Amendment 333 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 – point a – point vi
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 – point a – point vi
(vi) designing and implementing financial information technology systems for public- interest entities as referred to in Article 2(13)(b) to (j) of Directive 2006/43/EC;
Amendment 340 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 – point a – point viii
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 – point a – point viii
(viii) broker or dealer, investment adviser, or investment banking servicespreparing, promoting, dealing in or underwriting shares in the audit client.
Amendment 357 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 – point b – point i
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 – point b – point i
(i) human resources services, including recruiting senior management in a position to exert significant influence over the preparation of the accounting records or financial statements subject to the statutory audit;
Amendment 364 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 31 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
At least onll the members of the audit committee shall have competence in auditing and another member in accounting and/or audiin accounting. The committee members as a whole shall have also competence relevant to the sector in which the audited entity is operating.
Amendment 425 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Article 16 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point c
(c) an audit plan setting out the probable scope and method of the statutory audit; and, where more than one statutory auditor or audit firm have been appointed, the distribution of tasks among the appointed statutory auditors or audit firms and the rotation plan established in accordance with Article 33(1).
Amendment 438 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Article 33 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
The maximum duration of the combined two engagements shall not exceed 67 years.
Amendment 444 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – point h
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – point h
(h) describe the used methodology, including how much of the balance sheet has been directly verified and how much has been based on system and compliance testing;the aim of the audit and its degree of reliability.
Amendment 445 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 4
Article 33 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 4
Where throughout a continuous engagement of 67 years two statutory auditors or audit firms have been appointed, the maximum duration of the engagement of each statutory auditor or audit firm shall not exceed 914 years.
Amendment 445 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – point l
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – point l
(l) provide a statement on the situation of the audited entity or, in case of the statutory audit of consolidated financial statements, of the parent undertaking and the group, especially an assessment ofincluding ratios to assess the entity's or the parent undertaking's and group's ability to meet its/their obligation in the foreseeable future and therefore continue as a going concern;
Amendment 466 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 4
Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 4
The additional report shall be disclosed to the general meeting of the audited entity if the management or administrative body of the audited entity so decides.
Amendment 474 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – point e
Article 23 – paragraph 2 – point e
(e) describe the distribution of tasks among the statutory auditor(s)s and/or the audit firm(s);, and the rotation of those tasks individually allocated pursuant to Article 33(1).
Amendment 493 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1
Article 24 – paragraph 1
The audit committee of the public-interest entity shall monitor the work of the statutory auditor(s) or audit firm(s) carrying out the statutory audit, and, when more than one statutory auditor or audit firm have been appointed, the distribution of tasks between them and their rotation.
Amendment 523 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 5 – point c
Article 31 – paragraph 5 – point c
(c) monitor the statutory audit of the annual and consolidated financial statements and supervise the completeness and integrity of the draft audit reportpoints related to the audit development process in accordance with Articles 22 to 23;
Amendment 530 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 32 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
For the purposes of the application of Article 37 (1) of Directive 2006/43/EC, for the appointment of statutory auditors or audit firms by public-interest entities, the conditions set out in paragraphs 2 to 56 of this Article shall apply.
Amendment 531 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 32 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Where Article 37(2) of Directive 2006/43/EC applies, the public-interest entity shall only inform the competent authority of the use of the alternative systems or modalities referred to in that Article; in this case paragraphs 2 to 6 of this Article shall not apply.
Amendment 553 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Article 32 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Where more than one statutory auditor or audit firm have been appointed, the public-interest entity shall apply the procedure referred to in paragraph 3 at least every other renewal.
Amendment 579 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Article 33 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
The maximum duration of the combined two engagements shall not exceed 67 years.
Amendment 593 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 4
Article 33 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 4
Where throughout a continuous engagement of 67 years two statutory auditors or audit firms have been appointed, the maximum duration of the engagement of each statutory auditor or audit firm shall not exceed 9 years12 years, unless a rotation of tasks individually allocated to each of the statutory auditors or audit firms has been implemented within a maximum period of 5 years, in which case an extra period of 5 years is allowed.
Amendment 598 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 33 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. For the purposes of the application of Article 37 (1) of Directive 2006/43/EC, for the appointment of statutory auditors or audit firms by public-interest entities, the conditions set out in paragraphs 2 to 7 shall apply. Where Article 37 (2) of Directive 2006/43/EC applies paragraphs 2 to 4 of this Article shall not apply.
Amendment 615 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 3
Article 33 – paragraph 3
3. By way of derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2, on an exceptional basis the public- interest entity may request the competent authority referred to in Article 35(1) to grant an extension to re-appoint the statutory auditor or audit firm for an additional engagement. In case of appointment of two statutory auditors or audit firms, this third engagement shall not exceed three years. In case of appointment of one statutory auditor or audit firm, this third engagement shall not exceed two years.
Amendment 626 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
Article 33 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1
ESMA or the Commission shall develop draft regulatory or implementing technical standards to specify technical requirements on the performance of statutory audits by more than one statutory auditor or audit firm including the balanced allocation of tasks among the statutory auditors or audit firms, the rotation of tasks referred to in paragraph 1, the independence of key audit partners and the most senior personnel involved in the statutory audit when rotation occurs, and the content of the handover file referred to in paragraph 65.
Amendment 667 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 40 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point b
(b) adequate compliance testing of procedures and a review of audit files of public interest entities in order to verify the effectiveness of the internal quality control system, including appropriate implementation of the provisions of Article 33(1), in particular regarding the rotation of tasks;
Amendment 736 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 70 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 70 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. By derogation from Articles 32 and 33 and by derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2, if more than one statutory auditor or audit firm have been appointed after [the date of entry into force of the Regulation], the following requirements shall apply for a period of 6 years: (a) individually allocated tasks to one of the statutory auditor or audit firm shall not initially be less than 20% of the total individually allocated tasks; (b) mandatory rotation of individually allocated tasks as referred to in Article 33(1) shall cover at least 60% of the total of the individually allocated statutory audit work.
Amendment 737 #
2011/0359(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 70 – paragraph 2 b (new)
Article 70 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. By derogation from paragraph 1 and 2, where more than one statutory auditor or audit firm have been appointed, the tendering procedure as referred to in Article 32(3) shall apply after [the date of entry into force of the Regulation] at least every other renewal.
Amendment 120 #
2011/0308(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Amendment 703 #
2011/0302(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex – Part I – point b – row 10
Annex – Part I – point b – row 10
Amendment 878 #
2011/0294(COD)
add the following multimodal platforms to the comprehensive network: – Pontevedra – Zalia – Torrelavega – Júndiz – Monzón – El Vallés – El Prat – El Gorguel – Ciudad Real – Albacete – San Roque – Mérida – Ponferrada/El Bierzo – Castellón – Alicante – Benavente – Zamora – Miranda de Ebro – Burgos – Palencia – Área Central – Aranda de Duero – Soria – Arévalo – Ávila – Segovia
Amendment 879 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 16/33
Annex I – Volume 16/33
add the following rail freight transport sections to the core network: – Almería – Málaga – Algeciras (along the coast) – Granada – Motril – Castejón – Logroño – Miranda – León – Gijón / Avilés – Palencia – Santander – Madrid – Cáceres – Mérida – Mérida – Badajoz – Portuguese border – Mora – Ciudad Real – Mérida
Amendment 881 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 16/33
Annex I – Volume 16/33
Amendment 891 #
2011/0294(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex I – Volume 17/33
Annex I – Volume 17/33
add the following rail passenger transport sections to the core network: – Madrid – Toledo – Madrid – Alcázar – Albacete – Murcia – Almería – Málaga – Algeciras (along the coast) – Avilés – Oviedo – Bilbao – Santander – Oviedo – El Ferrol – A Coruña – Castejón – Logroño – Miranda – Mora – Alcázar – Linares – Moreda/Jaén/Córdoba – Ourense – Vigo (via Cercedo) – Ourense – Monforte – Lugo – A Coruña – Palencia – Santander – Segovia – Ávila – Sevilla – Cádiz – Sevilla – Huelva – Portuguese border – Valencia – Alicante (along the coast) – Motilla – Albacete – La Encina – Santiago – Vigo – Portuguese border – Granada – Motril – Antequera – Málaga – Madrid – Ávila – Salamanca – León – Monforte – Torralba – Soria – Castejón – Plasencia – León – Gijón
Amendment 101 #
2011/0135(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point g a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point g a (new)
Amendment 108 #
2011/0135(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Representatives meeting as the Observatory invited from the private sector shall include a broad and, representative and balanced range of Union and national bodies representing the different economic sectors, including the creative industries, most concerned by andor most experienced in the fight against infringements of intellectual property rights.
Amendment 109 #
2011/0135(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Consumer organisations and, small and medium -sized enterprises, authors and other creators shall be properly represented.
Amendment 20 #
2011/0094(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) In the case of a dispute concerning a European patent with unitary effect, it is a legitimate requirement that the patent proprietor should provide a full translation of the patent into an official language of the participating Member State in which either the alleged infringement took place or in which the alleged infringer is domiciled. For reasons of legal certainty, the translation must be a faithful reflection of the original wording of the patent. The patent proprietor should also be required to provide, at the request of a court competent in the territory of the participating Member States for disputes concerning the European patent with unitary effect, a full translation of the patent into the language of proceedings of that court. Such translations should not be carried out by automated means and should be provided at the expense of the patent proprietor. In the case of a dispute concerning a claim for damages the court hearing the dispute should take into consideration that, before having been provided with a translation in his own language, the alleged infringer may have acted in good faith and maycould not have not known or had reasonable grounds to know that he was infringing the patent. The competent court should assess the circumstances of the individual case and inter alia should take into account whether the alleged infringer is a small and medium-sized enterprise operating only at local level, the language of the proceedings before the European Patent Office and, during the transitional period, the translation submitted together with the request for unitary effect.
Amendment 22 #
2011/0094(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) In order to facilitate access to European patents with unitary effect, in particular for small and medium-size enterprises, applicants who do not have a language in common with one of the official languages of the European Patent Office should be able to file their patent applications and any other procedural documents at the European Patent Office in any other official language of the Union. As a complementary measure, for applicantsmall and medium-sized enterprises, natural persons and non-profit organisations obtaining European patents with unitary effect and having their residence or principal place of business within a Member State of the Union which has as an official language a language other than one of the official languages of the European Patent Office, should benefit from a system of additional reimbursements of the costs related to the translation from that language into the language of the proceedings of the European Patent Office, beyond what is currently already in place at the European Patent Office,. The system of additional reimbursements should be administered by the European Patent Office in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation xx/xx [substantive provisions].
Amendment 23 #
2011/0094(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9 a (new)
Recital 9 a (new)
(9a) In the interests of persons who use a language for filing which is not one of the official languages of the European Patent Office, and taking into consideration European Union practice following the ruling of the Court of Justice in Case C-361/01 P1, the European Patent Office should implement a system in which the language for filing should be used for all correspondence relating to the application unless the applicant expressly indicates that he wishes the European Patent Office to use one of its official languages. ________________________________ 1 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 September 2003 in Case C-361/01 P Kik v OHIM [2003] ECR I-8283.
Amendment 24 #
2011/0094(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) In order to promote the availability of patent information and the dissemination of technological knowledge, machine translations of patent applications and specifications into all official languages of the Union should be available as soon as possible. Machine translations are being developed by the European Patent Office and are a very important tool seeking to improve access to patent information and to disseminate widely the technological knowledge. The timely availability of high quality machine translations of European patent applications and specifications into all official languages of the Union would benefit all the users of the European patent system. Machine translations are a key feature of European UniThey should be made available online and free of charge on poublicy. Such machine translations should serve for information purposes only and should not have any legal effecation of the patent application and of the granted patent.
Amendment 26 #
2011/0094(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) During a transitional period, before a system of high quality machine translations into all official languages of the Union becomes available, a request for unitary effect as referred to in Article 12 of Regulation xx/xx [substantive provisions] shall be accompanied by a full translation with legal effects of the specification of the patent into English where the language of the proceedings before the European Patent Office is French or German, or into any official language of the participating Member States that is an official language of the Union where the language of the proceedings before the European Patent Office is English. Those arrangements would ensure that during a transitional period all European patents with unitary effect are made available in English which is the language customary in the field of international technological research and publications. Furthermore, they would ensure that with respect to European patents with unitary effect translations would be published in other official languages of the participating Member States. Such translations should not be carried out by automated means and their high quality should contribute to the training of translation engines by the European Patent Office. They would also enhance the dissemination of patent information. The transitional period should terminate as soon as high quality machine translations into all official language of the Union are available, subject to an objective evaluation of the quality. The quality of machine translations should be regularly and objectively evaluated by an independent expert committee established by the participating Member States in the framework of the European Patent Organisation and composed of the representatives of the European Patent Office and the users of the European patent system. Given the technological development, the maximum periodThey would also enhance the dissemination of patent information. Such translations should not be carried out by automated means. The transitional period should not be longer than four the development of high quality machine translations cannot be considered to exceed 12 years. Consequently, the transitional period should lapse 12 years from the date of application of this Regulation, unless it has been decided to terminate that period earlieryears after the entry into force of this Regulation.
Amendment 28 #
2011/0094(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. In the case of a dispute relating to a European patent with unitary effect, the patent proprietor shall provide at the request and the choice of an alleged infringer, a full translation of the patent into an official language of the participating Member State in which either the alleged infringement took place or in which the alleged infringer is domiciled. The translation must be a faithful reflection of the original wording of the patent.
Amendment 31 #
2011/0094(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. In the case of a dispute concerning a claim for damages, the court hearing the dispute shall take into consideration that the alleged infringer may have acted without knowing or having reasonable grounds tocould not have known that he was infringing the patent before having been provided with the translation referred to in paragraph 1.
Amendment 32 #
2011/0094(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Amendment 33 #
2011/0094(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The participating Member States, shall, within the meaning of Article 143 of the EPC, give the European Patent Office the task of administering a compensation scheme for the reimbursement of all translation costs up to a ceiling, from the fees referred to in Article 13 of Regulation xx/xx [substantive provisions], for applicants filing patent applications or any other procedural documents at the European Patent Office in one of the official languages of the Union that is not an official language of the European Patent Office.
Amendment 36 #
2011/0094(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. The compensation scheme referred to in paragraph 1 shall be funded through the fees referred to in Article 13 of Regulation xx/xx [substantive provisions] and shall be available only for small and medium-sized enterprises, natural persons and non-profit organisations having their residence or principal place of business within a Member State of the Union.
Amendment 37 #
2011/0094(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 c (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. The compensation scheme referred to in paragraph 1 shall ensure full of the translation costs up to a ceiling set in such a way as to reflect the average market price for translations and to avoid abuse. Those costs shall not be reimbursed where the European Patent Office rules that a translation into an official language is not necessary.
Amendment 38 #
2011/0094(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 d (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. In the interests of persons who use a language for filing which is not one of the official languages of the European Patent Office, and taking into consideration European Union practice following the ruling of the Court of Justice in Case C-361/01 P1, the European Patent Office shall implement a system in which the language for filing is used for all correspondence relating to the application unless the applicant expressly indicates that he wishes the European Patent Office to use one of its official languages. ________________________________ 1 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 September 2003 in Case C-361/01 P Kik v OHIM [2003] ECR I-8283.
Amendment 39 #
2011/0094(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. During a transitional period of not more than four years starting on the date of application of this Regulation in accordance with Article 7(2) of this Regulation, a request for unitary effect as referred to in Article 12 of Regulation xx/xx [substantive provisions] shall be submitted together with the following:
Amendment 40 #
2011/0094(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) where the language of the proceedings is French or German, a full translation with legal effects of the specification of the European patent into English; or
Amendment 41 #
2011/0094(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) where the language of the proceedings is English, a full translation with legal effects of the specification of the European patent into any official language of the participating Member States that is an official language of the Union.
Amendment 43 #
2011/0094(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. In accordance with Article 12 of Regulation xx/xx [substantive provisions], the participating Member States, shall give, within the meaning of Article 143 of the EPC, the European Patent Office the task of publishing the translations referred to in paragraph 1 as soon as possible after the date on which a request for unitary effect as referred to in Article 12 of Regulation xx/xx [substantive provisions] is filed. The text of such translations shall have no legal value and be for information purposes only.
Amendment 44 #
2011/0094(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Amendment 46 #
2011/0094(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 4
Article 6 – paragraph 4
4. On the basis of the evaluation referred to in paragraph 3, every two years the Commission shall present a report to the Council and, if appropriate, make proposals for terminating the transitional periodNot later than four years after the date of application of this Regulation, the Commission shall make the necessary proposals for terminating the transitional period and ensuring that the language for filling, granting and prosecuting is English alone.
Amendment 47 #
2011/0094(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 5
Article 6 – paragraph 5
Amendment 5 #
2010/2076(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Highlights that active role of the citizens of the European Union is clearly stated in the Treaty of the European Union, particularly with reference to the European Citizens' Initiative; considers that the possibility for the citizens to set the legislative agenda is also directly connected with their actual and essential role in ensuring the correct application and compliance with European Union law and the transparency and certainty of the related procedures;
Amendment 7 #
2010/2076(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Notes that delays in correctly applying and transposing the European Union law directly affect the daily life of citizens and the enjoyment of their rights; highlights the high costs deriving from the non compliance and non application of the EU law and the consequent lack of trust in the European Institutions;
Amendment 8 #
2010/2076(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Recalls that the Legal Affairs Committee recently launched a Working Group on EU administrative law with the aim to examine whether a codification of EU administrative law is possible and what such a project would involve in practice; considers that the outcomes of this Working Group should be taken into account when discussing a European administrative code;
Amendment 9 #
2010/2076(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Reminds that the Commission has a primary role as the guardian of the Treaties in ensuring the correct and timely application of European Union law by the Member States; encourages the Commission to use all the competences granted to her by the Treaties, especially the new provisions of Article 260 TFEU concerning Member States' failure of notification of transposition measures of directives;
Amendment 10 #
2010/2076(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Notes with particular interest the Commission's commitment to deliver systematically an evaluation of the reply to complaint provided by a Member State; calls on the Commission to provide such an evaluation with the highest attention and after prompt analysis of the dossier; calls for a clarification of the role of complainant in the evaluation process;
Amendment 12 #
2010/2076(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11 a. Recalls its resolution of 17 June 2010 on the Judicial Training in civil and commercial matters; considers that it is of fundamental importance that judicial training is enhanced also in the perspective of the Action Plan implementing the Stockholm Programme;
Amendment 1 #
2010/0384(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Citation -1 (new)
Citation -1 (new)
- having regard to the proposal for a Council regulation on the translation arrangements for the European Union patent (COM(2010)0350) and its impact assessment,
Amendment 3 #
2010/0384(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009 brought about a change of the legal basis for the creation of the EU patent by introducing Article 118 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU"), according to which: “In the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall establish measures for the creation of European intellectual property rights to provide uniform protection of intellectual property rights throughout the Union and for the setting up of centralised Union-wide authorisation, coordination and supervision arrangements.”
Amendment 5 #
2010/0384(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas despite considerable efforts and several rounds of negotiations undertaken by the Council in 2010, it was confirmed at the Competitiveness Council meeting on 10 December 2010 that insurmountable difficulties existedit was not possible to makinge a decision on the translation arrangements requiring unanimity impossible now and in the foreseeable future and that the objec; whereas there exists different alternatives tof the proposed Regulations to establish unitary patent protection in the entire European Union could not be attained within a reasonable period by applying the relevant provisions of the Treatiestranslations arrangements –such as OHIM-like system, English only or English always-, that has never been discussed or even taken into consideration; whereas all these facts could lead to the conclusion that the proposed enhanced cooperation is not the last resort, as stated in article 20 TEU,
Amendment 7 #
2010/0384(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital N a (new)
Recital N a (new)
Na. whereas the Commission has not assessed the impact of its proposal on enhanced cooperation,
Amendment 9 #
2010/0384(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas Parliament has verified non- compliance with Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union ("TEU") and Articles 326 to 334 TFEU,
Amendment 12 #
2010/0384(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital R
Recital R
R. whereas, in particular, this enhanced cooperation may be regarded as furthering the Union's objectives, protecting its interests and reinforcing its integration process within the meaning of Article 20 TEU, in the light of the Commission's impact assessment in connection with its above-mentioned 2010 proposal for a regulation on the translation arrangements for the European Union patent, which pointed to the lack of a unitary patent providing protection across the entire EU leading to a fragmented patent system; whereas this fragmentation is caused by the high costs and complexity of validating notwithstanding the previous paragraph, the creation of a unitary patent protection extends to exclusive competence of the Union, as it will be necessary to adopt two International Agreements: The adhesion of the Union to the European Patent Convention (EPC), in order for the European pPatents in individual Member States which can amount to 40% of the overall costs of patenting in Europe; whereas the creation of unitary patent protection for a group of Member States would improve the level of patent protection by making it possible to obtain uniform patent protection throughout the territories of the participating Member St Office to be entitled to grant EU patents; The Agreement on the European and EU Patents Court, to be negotiatesd and would eliminate the costs and complexity for those territories, thus fostering scientific and technological advances and the functioning of the internal market,signed by the Union, its Member States and third parties.
Amendment 14 #
2010/0384(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital S
Recital S
S. whereas it is clearly apparent from the antecedents of this initiative that the proposed decision is not being put forward as a last resort and that the objectives of the cooperation cannot be attained within a reasonable period by the Union as a whole; whereas at least nine Member States intend to participate in it; whereas, therefore, the requirements of Article 20 TEU are satisfi, since alternative translation arrangements have not been seriously nor deeply discussed,
Amendment 15 #
2010/0384(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital T
Recital T
T. whereas the requirements of Articles 20, 326 to 334 TFEU are also satisfiednot satisfied, as the proposed enhanced cooperation undermines the internal market and the economic cohesion of the EU, is a discrimination to trade between Member States, distorts competition and does not respect the linguistic diversity of the EU; whereas there is also noncompliance with the requirements of Article 118 TFEU, since the enhanced cooperation does not provide uniform protection of intellectual property rights throughout the EU,
Amendment 17 #
2010/0384(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital U
Recital U
U. whereas, in particular, enhanced cooperation in this area does not compliesy with the Treaties and Union law - Article 326 TFEU - since it will not affect the acquis, gieven thatif, to date, only a limited number of legal acts of the Union within the meaning of Article 288 TFEU have been adopted, none of them covering the creation of a European intellectual property right providing for uniform protection throughout the Union; whereas, with the exception ofould be affected such as the Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, no approximation of substantive patent law exists at Union level, and whereasthe Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products and Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products concern patent term extensions for specific types of patented subject matter; whereas enhanced cooperation in the area of patents would not cause discrimination since access to the unitary patent will be open to users of the patent system from all over the Union,
Amendment 19 #
2010/0384(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital V
Recital V
Amendment 20 #
2010/0384(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital W
Recital W
W. whereas enhanced cooperation will not respect the rights, competences and obligations of the non-participating Member States, inasmuch as the possibility of obtaining unitary patent protection on the territories of the participating Member States does not affect the availability or the conditions of patent protection on the territories of non- participating Member State of third parties - who must respect patents - to receive the patent information in equal conditions, leading thus to an increase in the number of patent infringements,
Amendment 21 #
2010/0384(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital X
Recital X
Amendment 25 #
2010/0384(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Y
Recital Y
Y. whereas Article 333(2) TFEU allows the Council (or, more precisely, those membersthe second paragraph of Article 118 TFEU obliges the Council to consult the Parliament ofn the Council representing the Member States participating in enhanced cooperation) to adopt a decision stipulating that it will act under the ordinary legislative procedure, rather than the special legislative procedure provided for in the second paragraph of Article 118 TFEU, under which Parliament is merely consultedregulation on the translation arrangements for the European Union patent; whereas this consultation has not taken place, yet,
Amendment 27 #
2010/0384(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. CDoes not consents to the proposal for a Council decision;
Amendment 28 #
2010/0384(NLE)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 5 #
2010/0232(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 98/78/EC
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. Where insurance undertakings or reinsurance undertakings authorised in two or more Member States have as their parent undertaking the same insurance holding company, non-member-country insurance undertaking, non-member country reinsurance undertaking, mixed financial holding company or mixed-activity insurance holding company, the competent authorities of the Member States concerned may reach an agreement as to which of them shall be responsible for exercising supplementary supervision. Where the authorities are unable to reach an agreement, the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) or both, as appropriate, acting through the Joint Committee of European Supervisory Authorities, shall arbitrate between the competent authorities, and if necessary settle the disagreement by issuing a binding decision.
Amendment 17 #
2010/0220(NLE)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The small contribution of subsidised coal to the overall energy mix no longer justifies the maintenance of such subsidies with a view tof securing the supply of energy on a Union level, provided this is not secured by other means.
Amendment 21 #
2010/0220(NLE)
Proposal for a regulation
Title
Title
on State aid to facilitate the closuretransition to competitivity of uncompetitive coal mines
Amendment 22 #
2010/0220(NLE)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The small contribution of subsidised coal to the overall energy mix no longer justifies the maintenance of such subsidies with a view of securing the supply of energy on a Union level, as long as this result cannot be guaranteed by other means.
Amendment 23 #
2010/0220(NLE)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
Amendment 23 #
2010/0220(NLE)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
Amendment 24 #
2010/0220(NLE)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 a (new)
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) Considering the scarcity of autochthonous energy sources in the EU, the Union's policies for promoting renewable fuels and fossil fuels with low carbon content in order to generate electricity justify the support to coal mines. The categories of aid permitted by Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 should not be maintained indefinitely. In any event, all public aid aimed at reducing the effects of pollution caused by coal, should be maintained. Those mines that, after a ten-year period, are able to achieve competitiveness and require a financial boost from the public sector to enable them to make technological investments for environmental purposes, will also be exempt from the elimination of aid.
Amendment 26 #
2010/0220(NLE)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 a (new)
Recital 3 a (new)
(3a) Indigenous energy sources in the EU being scarce, the Union’s policies of encouraging renewable and lower carbon fossil fuels for power generation do justify support for coal mines. The categories of aid permitted by Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 should not be maintained indefinitely. In any event, State aid intended to reduce the pollutant effect of coal should be maintained. Mines that after this 10-year period are capable of being competitive but still need State assistance with regard to implementation of environmental technology investments should be exempted from this discontinuation of subsidies.
Amendment 29 #
2010/0220(NLE)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Without prejudice to the general State aid rules, Member States should be able to take measures to alleviate the social and regional consequences of the possible closure of those mines, that is to say the orderly winding down of activities in the context of an irrevocable closure plan and/or the financing of exceptional costs, inherited liabilities in particular.
Amendment 29 #
2010/0220(NLE)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8 a (new)
Recital 8 a (new)
(8a) A minimum level of coal production, together with other measures, especially those aiming at the promotion of renewable energy sources, will contribute to the maintenance of a quota of primary energy sources, which will allow energy security in the Union to be reinforced significantly. In addition, a quota of autochthonous sources of primary energy will help to promote environmental goals in relation with sustainable development. In this framework of boosting autochthonous energy sources in Europe in order to counterbalance the continent's huge dependence on energy sources from outside its borders, consideration should be given to complementing autochthonous energy sources, which in many Member States are represented solely by coal, with non-fossil ones.
Amendment 35 #
2010/0220(NLE)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the operation of the production units concerned must form part of a closure plan the deadline of which does not extend beyond 31 OctoDecember 201420 ;
Amendment 36 #
2010/0220(NLE)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the production units concerned must be closed definitively in accordance with the closure plan, in the event that they have not become competitive and provided that their continued operation is not necessary to meet Union's energy needs;
Amendment 40 #
2010/0220(NLE)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) the overall amount of closure aid granted by a Member State for any particular undertaking must follow a downward trend, where the reduction between successive periods of fifteen months must not be less than 33 percent of the aid provided . This aid reduction shall not be applicable to the mines that have succeeded in becoming competitive during the initial fifteen month period of the closure planis period and which require public investments aimed only at reducing the polluting effects of coal ;
Amendment 42 #
2010/0220(NLE)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8 a (new)
Recital 8 a (new)
(8a) A minimum level of coal production, together with other measures, in particular to promote renewable energy sources, will help to maintain a quota of primary energy sources, which will significantly boost the European Union's energy security. Furthermore, a quota of indigenous primary energy sources will also serve to promote environmental objectives within the framework of sustainable development. Within this context of boosting the Union’s indigenous energy sources in order to counteract the continent’s huge energy dependence, supplementing non-fossil indigenous energy sources with fossil ones needs to be considered, coal being the sole source of indigenous fossil energy in some Member States.
Amendment 45 #
2010/0220(NLE)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. If the production units to which aid is granted pursuant to paragraph 1 are not closed at the date fixed in the closure plan as authorised by the Commission, they have not become competitive and their continued operation is not necessary in the light of the energy autonomy conditions of that State, the Member State concerned shall recover all aid granted in respect of the whole period covered by the closure plan.
Amendment 51 #
2010/0220(NLE)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) In accomplishing its task, the European Commission should ensure that normal conditions of competition are established, maintained and complied with. With regard to more especially to the electricity market, aid to the coal industry should not be such as to affect electricity producers' choice of sources of primary energy supply. Consequently, the prices and quantities of coal should be freely agreed between the contracting parties in the light of prevailing conditions on the world market. In any event, and to prevent social or environmental dumping, the Community authorities should ensure that the social and environmental standards in mines in non-EU countries producing coal for marketing in the Union equate to the standards required of European coal mines.
Amendment 56 #
2010/0220(NLE)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 2
2. Aid shall cover only costs in connection with coal for the production of electricity, the combined production of heat and electricity, the production of coke and, the fuelling of blast furnaces in the steel industry, research and technology investment designed to reduce pollutant emissions from coal, where such use takes place in the Union.
Amendment 58 #
2010/0220(NLE)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
a) the operation of the production units concerned must form part of a closure plan the deadline of which does not extend beyond 31 OctoDecember 201420;
Amendment 62 #
2010/0220(NLE)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
b) the production units concerned must be closed definitively in accordance with the closure plan if they have not become competitive by that date and provided that the Union’s energy needs do not require their continued existence;
Amendment 66 #
2010/0220(NLE)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point f
f) the overall amount of closure aid granted by a Member State for any particular undertaking must follow a downward trend, where the reduction between successive periods of fifteen months must not be less than 33 percent of the aid provided in the initial fifteen mon. This reduction in aid shall not apply to mines that, having managed to be competitive in this period, still require public sector investment solely for the period of the closure planurpose of reducing pollution produced by coal;
Amendment 74 #
2010/0220(NLE)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. If the production units to which aid is granted pursuant to paragraph 1 are not closed at the date fixed in the closure plan as authorised by the Commission, have not become competitive and the energy sufficiency situation in the Member State concerned does not require their continued existence, the Member State concerned shall recover all aid granted in respect of the whole period covered by the closure plan.
Amendment 80 #
2010/0220(NLE)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the operation of the production units concerned must form part of a closure plan the deadline of which does not extend beyond 31 OctoDecember 2014 22;
Amendment 7 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas violations of intellectual property rights (IPR), defined as any violation of any IPR, such as copyright, trade marks, designs or patents,commercial goods counterfeiting constitutes a genuine threat not only to consumer health and safety but also to our economies and societies,
Amendment 10 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas knowledge sharing and dissemination of innovation are strong traditions in the European Union; whereas access by the greatest possible number to technological progress and cultural products continues to be the foundation of education and development policy,
Amendment 17 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the phenomenon of on-line piracy has assumed very alarming proportions, particularly for the creative content industries, and whereas the existing legal framework has proven incapable of effectively protecting rights- holders on the Internet andre are no reliable and independent data as to the impact of on- line IPR infringements, and whereas the existing legal framework needs to be clarified to ensure the balance between all the interests at stake, including those of consumers,
Amendment 20 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas efforts to tackle on-line non- commercial file sharing have created a strong and prejudicial antagonism between the creative industries and their public, and it is therefore necessary to explore new ways of creating synergy between the rights of the public and the revenues of authors and creators,
Amendment 26 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas, with the exception of legislation on penalties under the criminal law, a Community legal framework already exists with regard to the phenomenon of counterfeiting and piracy of physical goods, but whereas lacunae persist with regard to the trade of counterfeit goods over the Internet piracy,
Amendment 30 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
Ha. whereas the telecoms regulatory framework has recently been amended, rejecting proposals for so-called graduated response schemes at EU level, and instead includes provisions for standardised public interest notices which can address, among other things, copyright and infringement thereof without jeopardising data protection and privacy rights and stresses the need to respect fundamental rights in matters relating to Internet access,
Amendment 32 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas there are proven connections between various forms of organised crime and IPR infringements, in particular counterfeiting and piracy,
Amendment 41 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Views as regrettable the fact that the Commission links the terms ‘piracy’ and ‘counterfeiting’ in its communication, thereby creating a legal grey area with regard to the offence being referred to;
Amendment 43 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Wonders about the accuracy of the word ‘piracy’ as used to designate the non-commercial exchange of content on line, which leads to a de facto criminalisation of millions of European citizens, particularly young people;
Amendment 46 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Calls on the Commission to urgently presentpropose a comprehensive IPR strategy addressing all aspects of IPRs, including their enforceon IPR which will remove obstacles to creating a single market in the online environment and adapt the European legislative framework in the field of IPR to current trends in society as well as to technical developments;
Amendment 49 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Stresses that any measures taken to enforce IPR must respect the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, including Article 10, Article 8, and Article 6, and be necessary, proportionate, and appropriate within a democratic society;
Amendment 52 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Takes the view that the Commission should take into account the specific problems encountered by SMEs when it comes to reinforcing the intellectual property rights corresponding to the principle of ‘Think Small First’ established by the Small Business Act for Europe, inter alia by applying the principle of non-discrimination for SMEs;
Amendment 54 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. DoTakes not sharee of the Commission's certitudeview that the current civil enforcement framework in the EU is effective and harmonised to the extent necessary forcontributes to the proper functioning of the internal market and reminds the Commission that the report on the application of Directive 2004/48/EC is essential to confirm those claims;
Amendment 57 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Commission to draw up the report on the application of Directive 2004/48/EC, including an assessment of the effectiveness of the measures taken, their compatibility with fundamental rights, as well as an evaluation of its impact on innovation and the development of the information society, in accordance with Article 18(1) of that Directive and, if necessary, to propose amendments; calls for that report also to include an assessment of the ways to strengthen and upgrade the legal framework with respect to the Internetimpact of the directive on the digital market of creative content and consumers’ rights;
Amendment 59 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Does not sShares the Commission view that the principal body of laws with respect to IPR enforcement is already in place; points out in this respect that negotiations on the directive on criminal sanctions have not been successfully concluded and calls on the Commission to put forward a new proposal on criminal sanctions under the Treaty of Lisbon for serious infringements committed by organized crime entities;
Amendment 60 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the measures aimed at strengthening the application of intellectual property rights in the internal market do not impinge on the legitimate right to interoperability, this being essential to healthy competition on the digital works distribution market, inter alia for the authors and users of free software;
Amendment 64 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Proposes to change the name of the Observatory to avoid the mention of ‘piracy’, which is often a source of confusion and is a very controversial notion;
Amendment 66 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Stresses the need to avoid creating new parallel bureaucratic structures for tasks that can be handled by existing institutions, such as Europol, forums for cooperation between customs authorities, and statistics-gathering bodies within the EU, in order to avoid duplication of effort;
Amendment 67 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. WelcomUrges the establishment of the Observatory as a tool for centralCommission to produce a report on how best to use Europol and exisation of statistics and data which will serve as a basis for proposals to be implementedng structures for cooperation between customs authorities to combat effectively the phenomenaon of counterfeiting and piracy, including on- line piracy;
Amendment 68 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Urges the Commission to guarantee that the Observatory obeys EU rules in the field of privacy and data protection;
Amendment 69 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Wishes the Observatory to become a tool for collecting and exchanging data and information on all forms of all IPR infringements; its prime objective should be to compile scientific research regarding counterfeiting and IPR regulation;
Amendment 72 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Calls on the Commission to inform Parliament and the Council fully and comprehensively about the results of the Observatory's activities through annual reports in which the Commission draws conclusions and proposes solutions necessary to enhance the enforcement of IPRsimprove IPR law;
Amendment 75 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses the need to organise a campaign to raise awareness at European, national and local level of the risks to consumer health and safety arising from counterfeit products and also the adverse impact of counterfeiting and piracy on the economy and society;
Amendment 80 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on all parties concerned, including Internet service providers, on- line sales platforms, rights-holders and consumers' organisatiothe Member States to conduct awareness campaigns, with regard to piracy and the sale of counterfeit products on line, to establish a dialogue on practical measures to be adopted to alert people, such as brief, visible and relevant warning messageswhere applicable and appropriate by way of the public interest information mechanism provided for in the Citizens’ Rights Directive;
Amendment 82 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 87 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Agrees with the Commission that additionalCautions against non-legislative measures are useful to improvegarding the application of IPR, particularly measures arising from as they may lead to the circumvention of legal safeguards, including those concernin-g depth dialogue among stakeholdersata protection and privacy;
Amendment 89 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 92 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Stresses that a number of factors have allowed this phenomenon to develop, particularly technological advances and the lack of legitimate offers; recalls however that this phenomenon constitutes a violation of IPR to which appropriate, urgent solutions need to be found, geared to the sector concerned and in compliance with fundamental rights;
Amendment 94 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Stresses that support for and development of the provision of a diversified, attractive, high-profile, legal range of goods and services for consumers may help to tackle the phenomenon, but recognises that this is not sufficient: piracy is today the biggest obstacle to the development of legal online offers and the EU runs the risk of condemning to failure efforts to develop the legitimate online market if it does not recognise that fact and make urgent proposals to address iwill ensure the development of a dynamic market for online creative content;
Amendment 99 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Stresses that all parties concerned, includingUrges the Commission to rethink the critical issue of intellectual property and to invite all those active in the sector, including in particular telecom operators and Internet service providers, musto join in the dialogue with stakeholders in order to find the appropriate solutions in the course of 2010; calls on the Commission, failing this, to submit a legislative proposal or to amend existing legislation, particularly Directive 2004/48/EC, so as to upgrade the Community legal framework in this field on the basis of national experiencesforces and seek solutions that are equitable for large and small stakeholders as much as for consumers, that guarantee fair, effective remuneration to all categories of rights holders, real choice for consumers, cultural diversity and respect for fundamental rights, including the right to data protection and privacy;
Amendment 104 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Commission to think broadly about methods of facilitating industry’s access to the digital market without geographical borders by addressing urgently the issue of multi- territory licences where there is substantial demand from consumers, as well as an effective and transparent system for rights management, as this is a requirement for thewhich would complement the existing growth in services which are legal and which meet consumer demand for ubiquitous, instant and customised access to content;
Amendment 108 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Invites the Commission to adopt an open-ended approach to the proposals that have emerged regarding the recognition of online file sharing by producing comprehensive data regarding the economic aspects of mutualised funding schemes for creation based on non-market exchanges of digital content (such as the ‘creative contribution’ or ‘Kulturflatrate’);
Amendment 109 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Stresses the need to ensure that any legislative measure should not restrict in any way the fundamental rights to data protection and privacy as recognised in EU law;
Amendment 112 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Supports steps taken by the Commission with a view to identifying the best ways to further improve the EU Customs Regulation which allows the detention of goods suspected of infringing IPRs and is, as such, one of the pillars of the Union legal framework designed to enforce IPRs, and calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure that the detention of goods whose illegality is not proven should be as short as possible to avoid illegitimately blocking international transfers of such goods when an overriding general interest, such as public health, is at stake in countries of destination;
Amendment 114 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Calls on the Commission to pursue innovative and upgraded cooperation between administrative departments and the various sectors of industry concerned, without prejudice to the traditional and legal distinction between the roles and competences of the law enforcement and judicial authorities and of the industry;
Amendment 116 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Calls on the Commission to step up its cooperation with priority third countries with regard to intellectual property and continue its effortspromote a balanced approach in the context of the negotiations on intellectual property under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation concerning intellectual property, particularly in the framework of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS);
Amendment 119 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Calls on the Commission to continue its efforts to furtherfully inform Parliament on the progress and outcome of the negotiations on the multilateral Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) to improve the effectiveness of the IPR enforcement system against counterfeiting and to fully inform Parliament on the progress and outcome of the negotiationsand to ensure that the provisions of ACTA fully comply with the acquis communautaire on IPR and fundamental rights;
Amendment 120 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Reiterates its calls on the Commission to ensure that ACTA only concentrates on IPR enforcement measures and not on substantive IPR issues such as the scope of protection, limitations and exceptions, secondary liability or liability of intermediaries, and that ACTA is not used as a vehicle for modifying the existing European IPR enforcement framework;
Amendment 121 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 b (new)
Paragraph 25 b (new)
Amendment 122 #
2009/2178(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Stresses the importance of fighting organised crime in the area of IPRs, in particular counterfeiting and piracy; points out in this context the need for appropriate EU legislation on criminal sanctions and supports close strategic and operational cooperation between all the interested parties within the EU, in particular Europol, national authorities and the private sector, as well as with non-EU states and international organisations;
Amendment 17 #
2009/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that the grounds on which exception may be taken to enforcement must be no fewermore than those set out in Arts 34 and 35 of the Regulation and encourages the Commission to initiate a public debate on the question of public policy in connection with private international law instruments;
Amendment 21 #
2009/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that, in order to save costs, the translation of the decision to be enforced could be limited to the final order (operative part and summary grounds), but that a full translation should be required in the event that an application is made for review or if the court considers it appropriate in order to enforce the decision with full respect to its content;
Amendment 26 #
2009/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Strongly opposes the (even partial) abolition of the exclusion of arbitration from the scope; any change whatsoever that could hinder the effectiveness of arbitration agreements and, in general, the proper functioning of arbitration in civil and commercial matters;
Amendment 34 #
2009/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Considers that the question whether the rules of the Regulation should be given reflexive effect has not been sufficiently considered and that it would be premature to take this step without much study, wide- ranging consultations and political debate, in which Parliament should play a leading role; further considers that, in view of the existing of large numbers of bilateral agreements between Member States and third countries, questions of reciprocity and international comity, the problem is a global one and a solution should be sought in the Hague Conference through the resumption of negotiations on an international judgments convention; mandates the Commission to use its best endeavours to revive this project, the Holy Grail of private international lawto be sufficiently considered;
Amendment 11 #
2009/0127(COD)
Proposal for a decision – amending act
Article 1 – point 1
Article 1 – point 1
Decision No 573/2007/EC
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Member States shall receive a fixed amount of EUR 4 000 for each resettled person falling into one of the categories defined by the common EU annual priorities established in accordance with Article 13(6) with respect to geographic regions and nationalities as well as to specific categories of refugees to be resettled. . The following categories of refugees shall be considered as common EU annual priorities: - survivors of violence and torture, - women and girls at risk, such as girls at risk of undergoing female genital mutilation and women facing gender- based violence, - unaccompanied or separated children for whom resettlement is in their best interest, - persons having serious medical needs or disabilities that can be addressed only through resettlement, and - persons in need of emergency resettlement or urgent resettlement for reasons of legal or physical protection, such as refugees facing threat of refoulement or a threat to their physical safety, rendering asylum untenable.
Amendment 10 #
2009/0054(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Late payment constitutes a breach of contract which has been made financially attractive to debtors in most Member States by low or no interest rates charged on late payments and/or slow procedures for redress. A decisive shift towards a culture of prompt payment, including making the exclusion of the right to charge interest an unfair contractual clause and providing for a compensation of creditors for the costs incurred, is necessary to reverse this trend and to ensure that the consequences of late payments are such as to discourage late payment. That shift should include providing for compensation of creditors for the costs incurred in recovering overdue debts. Similarly, contractual clauses and commercial practices which set interest rates for late payment that are lower than the legal rate and compensation for debt recovery at less than that laid down in law should be deemed unfair contractual clauses and unfair commercial practices.
Amendment 13 #
2009/0054(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) Late payment is particularly regrettable if it occurs despite the debtor’s solvency. Surveys show that public authorities often pay invoices very late after expiration of the applicable payment period. Public authorities may face lighter financing constraints because they may benefit from more secure, predictable and continuous revenue streams than private undertakings. At the same time, they depend less than private undertakings on building stable commercial relationships for the achievement of their aims. Consequently, public authorities may have less incentive to pay on time. In addition, many public authorities can obtain financing at more attractive conditions than private undertakings. Therefore, late payment by public authorities not only leads to unjustified costs for private undertakings, but to inefficiency in general. It is therefore appropriate to introduce correspondingly higher dissuasive compensation in case of late payment by public authorities.
Amendment 15 #
2009/0054(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18 a (new)
Recital 18 a (new)
(18a) In a further effort to prevent abuse of freedom of contract to the disadvantage of creditors, Member States and representative organisations which are officially recognised or have a legitimate interest must encourage, with the support of the Commission, the drawing-up and dissemination of codes of good conduct and the adoption of voluntary systems for the resolution of conflicts through mediation and arbitration, with suitable complaint mechanisms, negotiated at national or Union level, and designed to ensure the effective implementation of the rights provided for in this Directive.
Amendment 17 #
2009/0054(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) It is necessary to ensure that the recovery procedures for unchallenged claims related to late payment in commercial transactions be completed within a short period of time, and that it is possible to submit the application telematically.
Amendment 18 #
2009/0054(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) It is necessary to ensure that the recovery procedures for unchallenged claims related to late payment in commercial transactions be completed within a short period of time, in accordance with the relevant national laws, regulations and administrative provisions.
Amendment 24 #
2009/0054(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Late payment constitutes a breach of contract which has been made financially attractive to debtors in most Member States by low interest rates charged on late payments and/or slow procedures for redress. A decisive shift, including making the exclusion of the right to charge interest an unfair contractual clause and providing for towards a culture of on-time payment is necessary to reverse this trend and to ensure that the consequences of late payments are such as to discourage late payment. This shift should include introducing compensation ofor creditors for the costs incurred, is necessary to reverse this trend and to ensure that the consequences of late payments are such as to discourage late paymentof recovering outstanding debts. Equally, clauses establishing interest rates for late payment or compensation levels f or debt recovery that are lower than those laid down in law should be considered as unfair contractual clauses and unfair commercial practices.
Amendment 40 #
2009/0054(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) Late payment is particularly regrettable if it occurs despite the debtor’s solvency. Surveys show that public authorities often pay invoices very late after expiration of the applicable payment period. Public authorities may face lighter financing constraints because they may benefit from more secure, predictable and continuous revenue streams than private undertakings. At the same time, they depend less than private undertakings on building stable commercial relationships for the achievement of their aims. Consequently, public authorities may have less incentive to pay on time. In addition, many public authorities can obtain financing at more attractive conditions than private undertakings. Therefore, late payment by public authorities not only leads to unjustified costs for private undertakings, but to inefficiency in general. It is therefore appropriate to introduce correspondingly higher dissuasive compensation in case of late payment by public authorities.
Amendment 41 #
2009/0054(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 5
Article 5 – paragraph 5
Amendment 44 #
2009/0054(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – title and paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 6 – title and paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 45 #
2009/0054(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 (becomes a new paragraph)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 (becomes a new paragraph)
1b. For the purpose of the first subparagraph, a clause which excludesor commercial practice which establishes an interest rate for late payment that is lower than the reference legal rate for late payment, plus at least seven percentage points, or compensation for recovery costs less than that laid down in law, shall always be considered as grossly unfair.
Amendment 46 #
2009/0054(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Unfair clauses set out in the general terms governing a contract as referred in the first paragraph shall also be considered void.
Amendment 47 #
2009/0054(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. The means referred to in paragraph 2 shall include provisions whereby representative organisationsorganisations officially recognised as representing companies, or as having a legitimate interest in doing so, are permitted to adopt systems for the resolution of conflicts through mediation and arbitration and may take action according to the national law concerned before the courts or before competent administrative bodies on the grounds that clauses are grosslyommercial terms or practices, including those relating to individual contracts, are unfair, so that they can apply appropriate and effective means to prevent their continued use.
Amendment 50 #
2009/0054(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that an enforceable title can be obtained, irrespective of the amount of the debt, normally within 90 calendar days of the lodging of the creditor'’s action or application at the court or other competent authority, provided that the debt or aspects of the procedure are not disputed. This duty shall be carried out by Member States in conformity with their respective national legislation, regulations and administrative provisions.
Amendment 51 #
2009/0054(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18 a (new)
Recital 18 a (new)
(18a) In the context of an enhanced effort to prevent contractual freedom being abused against creditors’ interests, Member States, officially recognised bodies and bodies possessing a legitimate interest should encourage, with the Commission’s support, the drawing-up and publicisation of codes of conduct and the adoption of conflict resolution systems based on mediation and arbitration, which should be voluntary, should offer suitable complaint procedures and should be negotiated at national or Union level and designed so as to ensure full observance of the rights set out in this Directive.
Amendment 52 #
2009/0054(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) It is necessary to ensure that the recovery procedures for unchallenged claims related to late payment in commercial transactions be completed within a short period of time, with the possibility of submitting claims online.
Amendment 53 #
2009/0054(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) It is necessary to ensure that the recovery procedures for unchallenged claims related to late payment in commercial transactions be completed within a short period of time, in line with the relevant laws, regulations or administrative provisions at national level.
Amendment 60 #
2009/0054(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point 2
Article 2 – point 2
(2) “public authority” means any contracting authority or entity, as defined by Directive 2004/18/EC;pursuant to Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors1, and to Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC; -------------------- 1 OJ L 134, 30.4.2004.
Amendment 73 #
2009/0054(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point 5
Article 2 – point 5
(5) “interest for late payment” means statutory interest or interest negotiated and agreed upon between undertakings;
Amendment 173 #
2009/0054(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 5
Article 5 – paragraph 5
Amendment 200 #
2009/0054(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
For the purpose of the first subparagraph, 1, a clause or commercial practice which excludes legal interest for late payment(the reference rate increased by at least 7 percentage points) or compensation for recovery costs, or both, shall always be considered as grossly unfair.
Amendment 4 #
2008/2133(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas intellectual property rights include geographical indications,
Amendment 69 #
2008/0244(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1
5. The continued detention shall be reviewed by aex officio by the judicial authority at reasonable intervals of time eitherand, when there is a change of circumstances or fresh information becomes available which affects the grounds for the detention, on request by the asylum seeker concerned orand, in its absence, ex officio.
Amendment 94 #
2008/0244(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1
Article 19 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that applicants receive the necessary health care which shall include, at least, emergency care and essential treatment of illness or mental disorderhealth care, including mental health care, under the same conditions as their own nationals.
Amendment 98 #
2008/0244(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 2
Article 19 – paragraph 2
Amendment 103 #
2008/0244(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 a (new)
Article 19 a (new)
Article 19a Member States shall ensure that victims of torture are quickly directed to a care centre appropriate to their situation.
Amendment 140 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 60 a (new)
Recital 60 a (new)
(60a) Digital goods transmitted to the consumer in a digital format, where the consumer obtains the possibility of use on a permanent basis or in a way similar to the physical possession of a good with the possibility to store it on his computer, should be treated as goods for the application of the provisions applying to sales contracts. The format in which a product is presented or purchased should not matter in terms of consumer protection and consumers should be equally protected on line and off-line.
Amendment 148 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – introductory part
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – introductory part
(4) "goods' means any tangible movable item, with the exception of: (a) otherwise by authority of law, (b) put up for sale in a limited volume or set quantity, (c)or intangible item. goods sold by way of execution or water and gas where they are not electricity;
Amendment 172 #
Amendment 174 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4
Article 4
Member States may not maintain or introduce, in their national law, provisions diverging from those laid down in this Directive, including more or less stringent provisions to ensure a different level of consumer protection.
Amendment 213 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. With respect to distance contracts, the information provided for in Article 9(a)7 and 9 shall be given or made available to the consumer prior to thehis conclusion of the contractractual statement, in plain and intelligible language and in so far as this information is made available in writing, it shall be legible, in a way appropriate to the means of distance communication used. and it should be easily, directly and permanently accessible
Amendment 215 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 2
Article 11 – paragraph 2
2. If, in conformity with the national law applicable, the trader makes a telephone call to the consumer with a view to concluding a distance contract by telephone, the trader shall disclose his identity and, where applicable the identity of the person on whose behalf he makes the call and the commercial purpose of the call at the beginning of the conversation with the consumer.
Amendment 216 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 11 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. In case the contract places the consumer under the obligation to make a payment, the trader shall display this obligation clearly and prominently to the consumer, prior to the consumers’ contractual statement. The order shall be binding only if the consumer has confirmed to be aware of this obligation.
Amendment 217 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Article 11 – paragraph 3
3. If the contract is concluded through a medium which allows limited space or time to display the information, the trader shall provide at least the information regarding the main characteristics of the product and the total pricefinal price, the duration of the contract and if the contract is open-ended, the conditions for terminating the contract referred to in Articles 5(1)(a) and (c) on that particular medium prior to the conclusion of such a contract. The other information referred to in Articles 5 and 7 shall be provided by the trader to the consumer in an appropriate way in accordance with paragraph 1 and the consumer shall be informed thereof on a durable medium prior to the conclusion of such a contract.
Amendment 220 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Amendment 222 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 5
Article 11 – paragraph 5
Amendment 227 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. In the case of an off-premises contract, the withdrawal period shall begin from the day when the consumer signs the order form or in cases where the order form is not on paper, when the consumer receives a copy of the order form on another durable medium. In the case of a distancThe withdrawal period ends fourteen days after the latest of the following times: (a) the time of conclusion of the contract; (b) the time when the entitled party receives from the other party adequate information on the right to withdrawal; or (c) if the subject-matter of the contract foris the saledelivery of goods, the withdrawal period shall begin from the day on which the consumer or a third party other than the carrier and indicated by the consumer acquires the time when the goods are received. (d) if the subject-matterial possession of each of the goods ordered. In the case of a distance contract for the provision of of the contract is a mixed-contract (both goods and services,) the withdrawal period shall begin from the day of the conclutime when the latest event takes place (delivery of the good or provision of the contract.service)
Amendment 229 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 231 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 233 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Article 12 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 236 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 4
Article 12 – paragraph 4
4. The Member States shall notcan maintain national provisions prohibiting the parties from performing their obligations under the contract during the right of withdrawal period.
Amendment 240 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13
Article 13
If the trader has not provided the consumer with the information on the right of withdrawal in breach of Articles 9(b), 10(1) and 11(4), the withdrawal period shall expire three monthsone year after the trader has fully performed his other contractual obligations.
Amendment 251 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Amendment 256 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The consumer shall only be charged for the direct costs of returning of the goods unless the trader has agreed to bear that cost shall be borne by the trader if the price of the good to be returned is more than EUR 50.
Amendment 258 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2
Article 17 – paragraph 2
2. The consumer shall only be liable for any diminisis not required to pay for: (a) any diminution in thed value of the goods resulting from the handling other than what is necessary to ascertain the nature and functioning of the goods. He shall not be liable for diminished value where the trader has failed to provide notice of the withdrawal right in accordance with Article 9(b). For service contracts subject to a right of withdrawal, the consumer shall bear no cost for services performed, in full or in part, during the withdrawal periodanything received under the contract caused by inspection and testing; (b) any destruction, or loss of, or damage to, anything received under the contract, provided that the consumer used reasonable care to prevent such destruction, loss or damage.
Amendment 260 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. For services contracts, the consumer is liable for any costs incurred up to the point of withdrawal only when he expressly requested the early performance of the contract. Such costs should be reasonable and proportionate to the extent of the service already provided up to the point of withdrawal.
Amendment 275 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point f
(f) the supply of newspapers, periodicals and magazines with the exception of subscription contracts;
Amendment 277 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point g
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point g
(g) gamingcontracts with organisers of bets and lottery servicies;
Amendment 278 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point h
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point h
(h) contracts concluded at an auction, with the exception of contracts concluded at internet auctions.
Amendment 287 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 1
Article 22 – paragraph 1
1. Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the trader shall deliver the goods by transferring the material possession of the goods to the consumer or to a third party, other than the carrier and indicated by the consumer, within a maximum ofreasonable time which in any event shall not be more than thirty days from the day of the conclusion of the contract.
Amendment 290 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 2
Article 22 – paragraph 2
2. Where the trader has failed to fulfil his obligations to deliver, the consumer shall be entitled to a refund of any sums paid within seven days from the date of delivery provided for in paragraph 1 in time in accordance with paragraph 1, the consumer shall be entitled, in accordance with the applicable national law, to terminate the contract and request a refund. The trader shall refund any sums paid or other considerations provided by the consumer as soon as possible and in no case later than seven days from the date when he was informed about the consumer’s decision to terminate the contract.
Amendment 294 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 22 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. In addition to the termination of the contract in accordance with paragraph 2, the consumer may have recourse to other remedies provided by national law.
Amendment 305 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 24 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) they are fit for the purposes for which goods of the same type are normally used orand
Amendment 308 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 2 – point d
Article 24 – paragraph 2 – point d
(d) they show the quality and performance which are normal in goods of the same type including the consideration of the purpose, the appearance and finish, the freedom from minor defects and the durability of the product, availability of after-sales services and of spare parts, the conformity to legal requirements regarding the safety of goods, and which the consumer can reasonably expect, given the nature of the goods and taking into account any public statements on the specific characteristics of the goods made about them by the trader, the producer or his representative, particularly in advertising or on labelling.
Amendment 310 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 3
Article 24 – paragraph 3
3. There shall be no lack of conformity for the purposes of this Article if, at the time the contract was concluded, the consumer was aware, or should reasonably have been aware of, the lack of conformity, or if the lack of conformity has its origin in materials supplied by the consumer.
Amendment 314 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 4 – point b
Article 24 – paragraph 4 – point b
(b) by the time of conclusion of the contract the statement had been corrected by the same means and in due time before;
Amendment 324 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 2
Article 26 – paragraph 2
2. The trader shall remedy the lack of conformity by eitherIn case of lack of conformity, the consumer is able to choose between free repair orand replacement according to his choice.
Amendment 331 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 4 – point c
Article 26 – paragraph 4 – point c
(c) the trader has tried to remedy the lack of conformity, causinga remedy would be a significant inconvenience to the consumer;
Amendment 335 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 4 – point d a (new)
Article 26 – paragraph 4 – point d a (new)
(da) due to significant reasons, which are concerned with the supplier, a remedy is unreasonable.
Amendment 351 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 4
Article 28 – paragraph 4
4. In order to benefit from his rights under Article 25, the consumer shall inform the trader of the lack of conformity within two months from the date on which he detected the lack of conformity. A breach of this term will not entail a loss of the relevant right of remedy and the consumer, nevertheless, will be liable for any loss or damage effectively caused by a delayed notification. Unless otherwise proven, it will be understood that the consumer and user’s notification has taken place within the term established.
Amendment 352 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 5
Article 28 – paragraph 5
5. Unless proved otherwise, any lack of conformity which becomes apparent within six monthtwo years of the time when the risk passed to the consumer, shall be presumed to have existed at that time unless this presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods and the nature of the lack of conformity.
Amendment 356 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 29 a (new)
Article 29 a (new)
Amendment 361 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 29 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) without prejudice to Articles 32 and 35 and Annex III(1)(j), set out, where applicable,include the information that the commercial guarantee cannot be transferred to a subsequent buyer.
Amendment 365 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 30 – paragraph 1
Article 30 – paragraph 1
1. This Chapter shall apply to contract terms drafted in advance by the trader or a third party, which the consumer agreed to without having the possibility of influencing their content, in particular where such contract terms are part of a pre- formulated standard contract. The supplier has to prove that the contract clauses have been individually negotiated.
Amendment 370 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 31 – paragraph 1
Article 31 – paragraph 1
1. Contract terms shall be expressed in plain, intelligible language and be legible easily and permanently accessible; they should be provided in the language in which the contract is concluded.
Amendment 374 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 31 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 31 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The contract terms shall be presented at a place where a consumer reasonably expects to find them.
Amendment 375 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 31 – paragraph 4
Article 31 – paragraph 4
Amendment 380 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 32 – paragraph 1
Article 32 – paragraph 1
1. Where a contract term is not included in Annex II or III, Member States shall ensure that ita contract clause is regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
Amendment 381 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 32 – paragraph 2
Article 32 – paragraph 2
2. Without prejudice to Articles 34 and 38, tThe unfairness of a contract term shall be assessed, taking into account the nature of the products for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of the conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion and to all the other terms of the contract or of another contract on which the former is dependent. When assessing the fairness of a contract term, the competent national authority shall also take into account the manner in which the contract was drafted and communicated to the consumer by the trader in accordance with Article 31.
Amendment 386 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 32 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 32 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The Annex contains a non-exhaustive list of clauses, which may be been declared as being unfair and which can serve as a reference.
Amendment 387 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 32 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 32 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Where the contract is concluded for the acquisition of digital goods, the terms of use are not considered as the subject matter of the contract
Amendment 388 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 33
Article 33
Amendment 390 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 34
Article 34
Amendment 392 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 35
Article 35
Amendment 394 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 36 – paragraph 1
Article 36 – paragraph 1
1. The Member States will ensure that a contract clause is also considered to be unfair if it has not been written in plain and intelligible language. Where there is doubt about the meaning of a term, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer shall prevail.
Amendment 399 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 40
Article 40
Amendment 413 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex 3 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
Annex 3 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
(da) excluding or hindering the consumer’s right to instruct and authorise a third party to conclude a contract between the consumer and the trader and/or to take steps which are meant to lead to, or facilitate, the conclusion of a contract between the consumer and the trader.
Amendment 124 #
2007/0286(COD)
Council position
Article 14 – paragraph 4
Article 14 – paragraph 4
Amendment 254 #
2007/0286(COD)
Council position
Article 33 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 33 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. In the case of combustion plants with a total rated thermal input of more than 900 MW, which started operating before 31 December 1975 and which fire a mixture of low calorific gases from siderurgic process and coal so that the energy contributed by this coal is 1.5 times that provided by the gas, the number of hours of operation referred to in point (a) of paragraph 1 shall be 32 000 hours.
Amendment 305 #
2007/0286(COD)
Council position
Annex V – Part 1 – section 2 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Annex V – Part 1 – section 2 – paragraph 4 a (new)
In the case of a combustion plant with a total rated thermal input of more than 900 MW, which started operating before 31 December 1975 and fires a mixture of low calorific gases from siderurgic process and coal so that the energy contributed by that coal is 1.5 times that provided by the gas, and which does not operate more than 1 500 operating hours per year as a rolling average over a period of five years, shall be subject to an emission limit value for SO2 of 1 000 mg/Nm3.
Amendment 306 #
2007/0286(COD)
Council position
Annex V – Part 1 – section 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Annex V – Part 1 – section 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)
In the case of a combustion plant with a total rated thermal input of more than 900 MW, which started operating before 31 December 1975 and fires a mixture of low calorific gases from siderurgic process and coal so that the energy contributed by that coal is 1.5 times that provided by the gas, and which does not operate more than 1 500 operating hours per year as a rolling average over a period of five years, shall be subject to an emission limit value for SO2 of 1 000 mg/Nm3.
Amendment 320 #
2007/0286(COD)
Council position
Annex V – Part 1 – section 6 – note 4 a (new)
Annex V – Part 1 – section 6 – note 4 a (new)
(4a) 200 mg/Nm3 for such gas engines firing low calorific gases from siderurgic process and natural gas.
Amendment 31 #
2006/0135(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 7
Article 1 – point 7
Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003
Article 20a – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 20a – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Should the law indicated pursuant to the first paragraph of this article not recognise separation or divorce or do so in a form that is discriminatory as regards one of the spouses, the lex fori shall apply.
Amendment 33 #
2006/0135(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 7
Article 1 – point 7
Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003
Article 20b – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 20b – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Should the law indicated pursuant to the first paragraph of this article not recognise separation or divorce or do so in a form that is discriminatory as regards one of the spouses, the lex fori shall apply