Activities of Sajjad KARIM related to 2011/2117(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on alternative dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters PDF (211 KB) DOC (121 KB)
Amendments (10)
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes, however, that ADR forms part of a general ‘justice-for-growth’ agenda across sectors; takes the view that any approach to ADR shcould also have the potential to go beyond consumer disputes so as to include business-to-business (B2B) civil and commercial transactions, family disputes and defamation cases;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers that, whilst self-regulation remains important, legislative action setting out minimum standards upon which ADR schemes may be based is necessary in order to provide a framework for ADR within Member States' legal orders, as shown by the example of Directive 2008/52/EC;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that ADR standards should include: adherence to/agreement on ADR; independence, impartiality and confidentiality; effects on limitation and prescription; enforceability of agreements resulting from ADR; qualification of third parties, whilst retaining reference to the different types of ADR systems;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. In order not to prejudice access to justice, counselstresses caution in making recourse to ADR mandatory at EU level, whilst advocating voluntary adherence to ADR schemes by businesses;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Recalls that ADR is of particular interest to SMEs; reiterates its call upon the Commission to consider synergies between ADR and an instrument in EU contract law; would alsowould welcome guidance on ADR clauses in standard contracts;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Sees great potential for online ADR, in particular for smaller claims; notes that traditional ADR procedures exist online alongside others that seek to prevent disputes or to facilitate their resolution; emphasises that, where traditional ADR is carried out online, procedural standards should not be lowered, and that issues such as the enforceability of awards should also be resolved; sees a particular benefit in online trustmark systems; points to the work of the UNICTRAL Working Group on Online Dispute Resolution*1, intended for B2B and business-to-consumer (B2C) transactions;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Emphasises the crucial role of types of ADR in family disputes, where it may reduce psychological harm, can help the parties to start talking again and thereby, in particular, help ensure the protection of children; sees potential in cross-border ADR in terms of its flexibility in particular; points also to the work of the European Parliament Mediator for International Parental Child Abduction;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Commission, on the basis of the data collected and a solid impact assessment, to explore providing a harmonised legal framework for some aspectsetting out minimum standards of ADR across sectors, while developing existing schemes and encouraging Member States and sectors covered by schemes to increase funding, bearing in mind that ADR, while providing parties with a low-cost alternative, must not be ‘justice on the cheap’;