21 Amendments of Syed KAMALL related to 2011/2013(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas such transaction costs are perceived as important obstacles toising from legal cross- border trade, as confirmed by 60 % of EU retailers interviewed in 20082 , and whereas 46 % said harmonised rules woults relating directly to contract law issues may be marginal in comparison to other transaction costs incurred whelp to increase cross-border sales, 1 2n attempting to contract cross-border, Or. en Eurobarometer 224, 2008, p. 4. Eurobarometer 224, 2008, p. 4.
Amendment 25 #
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, cross-borde existing data indicates that harmonised laws would have little effect upon traders' cross-border activities, while consumers rank other issues such as transacting in their own language, with retailers established in their own Member State or sthopping appears to increase consumers' chances of finding a cheaper offer2 and of finding products not available domestically online3 se that are at least well known to them, as much more important than difficulties which are perceived to arise in relation to contract law when deciding whether to purchase goods,
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas any steps taken now towards a large revision in the area of European contract law must be coherent with the expectedwould be premature in view of the recent revision of the Consumer Rights Directive,
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 49 #
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 institutions, into a tool for the Union legislator; points out that a ‘toolbox’ would provide the necessary legal backdrop and underpinning against which an OI could operate;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 64 #
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,Calls on the Commission to include in any proposal for an OIa 'toolbox' a mechanism for regular monitoring and review, with the close involvement of all parties concerned;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Believes that the scope of a ‘toolbox’ could be quite broad, whereas any OI should be limited to the core contractual law issues;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Sees benefits in an OI 'toolbox' 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;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes that according to the re 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 fsponses to the recent Commission consultation, many businesses and consumers organisations are highly sceptical about any alleged advantages of an OI but would support all parties toolbox option;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. RecallConsiders that further work on cross- border alternative dispute resolution (ADR), in particular for SMEs and consumers, remains a priority, but emphasises that, if tshould be a higher 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 proposalriority than action in European contract law;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 123 #
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 toOI will not broaden the overall choice available to consumers, and indeed will be imposed rather than being a possible option in many cases on consumers;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Appreciates that both expert and stakeholder groups already have a varied geographical and sectoral background; believes that stakeholder contributions will become even more important once the consultation phase is over and theif a legislative procedure as such, which willould need to be as inclusive and transparent as possible, is launched;