8 Amendments of Eija-Riitta KORHOLA related to 2011/2089(INI)
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the overallin some Member States the performance of the existing consumer redress and enforcement tools designed at EU level is not deemedmight not be satisfactory,
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that, as a consequence of the weaknesses of the current redress and enforcement framework in the EU, a significant proportion ofsome Member States, consumers and SMEs who have suffered damage do not obtain redress, and continued illegal practices may cause significant aggregate loss to society;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls therefore on the Commission to submit a non-legislative initiative establishing a set of common principles for a collective redress mechanism applicable to both national and cross-border caseto ensure a greater degree of coherence between the national collective redress mechanisms, while taking due account of the EU legal tradition and the legal orders of the 27 Member States;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that a momentum for harmoniscoordination on European level also arises since certain Member States currently consider possibilities of introducing substantial reforms concerning their collective redress schemes;
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Emphasises that features which encourage a litigation culture such as punitive damages, contingency fees, the absence of limitations as regards standing, and excessive damages are not compatible with the European legal tradition and shouldmust be avoided;
Amendment 106 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 117 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18