13 Amendments of Hans-Peter MAYER related to 2011/2089(INI)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas individual lawsuits are oftensometimes not an effective means to stop unlawful practices or to obtain compensation, as consumers are reluctant to initiate private lawsuits, in particular if the individual loss is small in comparison to the costs,
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the overall performance of the existing consumer redress and enforcement tools designed at EU level is not deemedare not sufficiently well known, with the result that they are satisfactoryll not used as often as they should be,
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Recital G b (new)
Recital G b (new)
Gb. whereas a system based on collective legal actions can usefully supplement, but is no substitute for, individual legal protection,
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that, as a consequence of the weaknessesowing to ignorance of the current redress and enforcement framework in the EU, a significant proportion of consumers and SMEs who have suffered damage do not obtain redresdefend their rights, and continued illegal practices cause significant aggregate loss to society;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Calls on the Commission, therefore, to take immediate steps to ensure that consumers and businesses are made more aware of existing legislative instruments, such as Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, Directive 2008/52/EC on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters and Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims; with that aim in view, proposes that national authorities, courts, bar associations and chambers of commerce, consumer advice bureaux, legal expenses insurers and other competent organisations should be involved in a comprehensive information campaign; calls for financial support for corresponding EU-wide and national campaigns;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls therefore on the Commission to submit a legislative initiative establishing a set of common principles for a collective redress mechanism applicable to both national and cross- border cases, while taking due account of the EU legal tradition and the legal orders of the 27 Member States;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Stresses that, in addition to the possibility of individual enforcement of claims through judicial action, it should be possible to enforce claims by means of collective redress procedures; notes that one such procedure is the formation of a group by a number of claimants who in response to one and the same infringement of their rights join forces actively to enforce individual claims in the form of a joint claim; observes that this enforcement may be undertaken by means of lawyers and consumers’ organisations delegating action to an organisation representing the claimants’ interests, an agency acting in the public interest;
Amendment 93 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Stresses that consumers will only participate in collective redress at their express wish and that they must not be denied the right to bring claims individually;
Amendment 96 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Considers that the judge should also determine how the compensation is to be organised and check if funding arrangements are fair; stresses that court control mechanisms and proportionality requirements would protect defendants against abuse of the system;Does not affect the English version.
Amendment 108 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Affirms that, in order to make collective actions practically possible, Member States should ensure that adequate funding mechanisms are made available; stresses that public authorities should refuse to allocate resources to unmeritorious claimsshould be funded in accordance with national arrangements regarding costs and charges, in order avoid abuses, and that no separate funding should be provided by Member States; stresses that the current principle that the losing party is required to pay the costs should be retained;
Amendment 118 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Is conscious that some consumer organisations maight initially be unable to pursue collective actions due to a lack of resources, and therefore an equitable mechanism for bearing the costs of proceedings would need to be introduced as without appropriate funding only a very limited number of cases will be taken.the principle that the losing party is required to pay the costs should be retained so that consumers’ organisations can cover their procedural costs and possibly establish a reserve from which future claims could be funded;