6 Amendments of Fiona HALL related to 2011/2089(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission’s work towards a coherent European approach to collective redress (CR); calls on the Commission to pay particular attention to consumer and SME protection; stresses that CR will significantly enhance SME access to justice by reducing litigation costs and simplifying lengthy procedures; calls on the Commission to propose innovative self-financing solutions to ensure that collective actions are accessible;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Recalls that environmental damage is often cross-border in nature (oil spills, chemical clouds, etc.) and calls, therefore, on the Commission to extend CR to the application of EU environmental law; stresses that this would ensure proper functioning of the internal market and effective implementation of the polluter- pays principle;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – indent 1
Paragraph 2 – indent 1
– criteria limiting those bodies who can organise CR actions to those affected by the action and those with an active interest in the matter of the action,
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that any binding measures in a legislative proposal should apply mainly to the minimum standards, giving the Member States, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, the right to decide further measures; asks, however, for the Commission to also to issue voluntary guidelines for the Member States and to promote best practice;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. While underliningStresses that CR will simplify cross- border litigation cases giving EU citizens equal legal protection regardless of which EU Member State they reside in; underlines that all claims in a CR action should be treated equally before the law regardless of nationality or origin and that rulings should have recognition and enforceability across the EU, notes that any decision on compensation should be based on the national legislation of the Member State in which a case is presented, subject to any minimum standards set out in the directive;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that any participation should be subject to an ‘opt-in’judicial control as to whether the claim can be brought on an ‘opt-in’ or an ‘opt out’ basis (with an award of aggregated damages in the latter case) by the affected parties; believes that any action, if ruled admissible by a court, should be preceded by a comprehensive public information campaign;