22 Amendments of Sajjad KARIM related to 2011/2013(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas thean initiative on European contract law initiative, which seeks to address Sinternal mgle Market problems created bythat are said to arise due to divergent bodies of contract law, has been under discussion for many years,
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, in the wake of the global financial crisis, it appears more important than ever to provide a coherent European contract law regime in order to realise the full potential of the internal marketSingle Market remains fragmented, owing to many factors, including failure to implement existing Single Market legislation,
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas, according to a Commission survey of 2008, three-quarters of retailers sell only domestically, and cross-border selling often takes place in a few Member States only1 , 1 Eurobarometer 224, 2008, p. 4.t present there are a number of major factors aside from the existence of diverging rules of national contract law, including provisions applicable to consumer contracts, that discourage businesses from cross-border trading, for example cultural obstacles such as language, demographic composition of the population of individual Member States, corporate strategy and company structures, and intellectual property rights, Or. en
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the application of foreign (consumer) law to cross-border transactions, for instance under the Rome-I Regulation* 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 Member State12, but also in relation to differences in property law, product restrictions or law of torts, for example, could introduce transaction costs for businesses, in particular for SMEs,
Amendment 16 #
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 2008*1 , and whereas 46 % said harmonised rules would help to increase74% of those questioned indicated that harmonisation of the laws applicable when transacting with consumers across the European Union would have little or no effect on the level of their cross-border sales,
Amendment 23 #
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 country*2; whereas, on the oth however no causal link was drawn between refusal to trade cross-border hand, cross-border shopping appears to increase consumers' chances of finding a cheaper offer4 and of finding products 1 COM(2009)0557, p. 5. 2 Ibid, p. 3. 3 Ibid, p. 5. 4 Ibid, p. 3. not available domestically online1 problems arising as a direct result of differences in contract law; whereas cross-border shopping, particularly online, may increase choice for consumers, practical issues such as difficulties with language, uncertain complaints procedures, unclear or impractical redress mechanisms and a lack of recognition or trust in brand names used in other countries may dissuade consumers from shopping cross- border to a much greater extent than any differences in contract law,
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Favours the option of setting up an optional instrument (OI) by means of a regulation; believes that such an OI could be complemented by a ‘toolbox’ that should be endorsed by means of an interinstitutional agreementa "toolbox"; believes more invasive policy options such as an optional instrument (OI) would be a disproportionate response to perceived barriers arising in relation to cross-border trading;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Believes that a ‘toolbox’ could possibly be put into practice step-by-step, starting as a Commission tool, and being converted, once agreed between the institutionsif found useful, into a tool for the Union legislator; points outconsiders that a ‘toolbox’ wcould provide the necessary legal backdrop and underpinning agaibe usefully augmented with a free- standing set of standard terms and conditionst which an OI could operatemay be made freely available to businesses;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that an OI "toolbox" and accompanying set of standard terms and conditions would generate European added value, in particular by ensuring legal certainty through the jurmeans to tackle both legal and linguisdtiction of the Court of Justice, providing at a stroke the potential to surmount both legal and linguistic barriers, as an OI would naturally be available in all EU languages; barriers, as the "toolbox" will naturally assist legislators, encouraging common definitions and approaches in instances of legal reform, while a set of standard terms and conditions would naturally be available in all EU languages, facilitating use in cross- border transactions;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Sees a compelling practical advantage in the flexible and voluntary nature of an opt-in instrument; calls, however, on the Commission to include in any proposal for an OI a mechanism for regular monitoring and review, with the close involveuse of a "toolbox" as a reference point for legislators; considers that a "toolbox" allows legislators to carry out a considered appraisal of the utility of the Common Frame of Reference in relation to future revisions and developments of all parties concernedcontract law within the European Union;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that both business-to-business andthe set of standard terms and conditions should be drawn up exclusively in relation to business-to- consumer contracts should be coveredross-border contracts; emphasises that the level of consumer protection would need to be high, as mandatory national provisions, including in the area of consumer law, would be replaced;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Sees no reason why an OI should not be available as an opt-in both in cross-border andConsiders that the scope of a "toolbox" should be broad, applicable primarily in relation to situations with cross-border implications; notes that it may also have application in domestic situations, as this wcould have thebring advantages ofvia simplicity and cost- saving, especially for the SME sector; strongly believes, however, that the effects of a domestic opt-in on national bodies of contract law merit specific analysisany such domestic application be a matter for Member States to determine;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Acknowledges that e-commerce or distance-selling contracts account for an important share of cross-border transactions; believes, however, that an OI should not be limited to these types of transaction that a set of standard terms and conditions could assist in encouraging traders to offer goods online;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Sees benefits in an OI containing specific "toolbox" considering in detail 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 asbelieves that other areas may also benefit from consideration, including treatment of 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;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes 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 manner which makes it simple and attractive to use for all partiesConsiders that a "toolbox" can be readily integrated into the drafting processes for future Union legislation; notes that there is clear agreement amongst business and consumer groups regarding the utility of a "toolbox"; further notes the scepticism of many of these stakeholders towards action going beyond a "toolbox", for example an OI;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Believes that whilst an OI will have the effect of providing a single body of law, there will still be a need to seek provision of standard terms and conditions of trade which can be produced in a simple and comprehensible form, should be available off- the-shelf for businesses, and in particular SMEs, and with some form of trust mark systemendorsement to ensure consumer confidence;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Recalls that further work on cross- border alternative dispute resolution (ADR), 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;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Suggests that lack of confidence inimprovements to the functioning and effectiveness cross-border redress systems could be further tackled by a directacilitated by linkages between the OIa "toolbox" and standard terms and conditions and the European Order for Payment Procedure and the European Small Claims Procedure;
Amendment 122 #
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 andthe combination of a "toolbox" and set of standard terms and conditions will encourage new entrants to markets across the European Union, thereby strengthening competition, will actually and broadening the overall choice available to consumers;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Recalls, in accordance with Better Lawmaking principles, the need for a comprehensive and broad impact assessment, analysing different policy options, including that of not taking Union action, and focusing on practical issues; notes the opinion of many stakeholders that while the Commission may have acted according to the letter of the Better Lawmaking initiative, the principles and spirit behind the Better Lawmaking and Smart Regulation programmes have not been evident in the Commission's recent approach towards this issue; looks forward to the European Commission presenting to the European Parliament the results of the consultation and of the impact assessment evaluating fully all the options proposed by the Green Paper;