Activities of Hans-Peter MAYER related to 2011/2117(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on alternative dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters
Amendments (15)
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal on the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for consumer mattersprocedures to resolve legal disputes concerning civil, commercial and family matters (alternative dispute resolution, ADR) in the EU by the end of 2011 and emphasises the importance of its swift adoptionthis proposal;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 1 – point 1 (new)
(1) Calls on the Commission, at the same time, 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 to be provided for European and national campaigns of this kind; calls for support to be provided for the implementation of just such a campaign concerning the ADR procedure, to coincide with the introduction of that procedure;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Agrees with the Commission that appropriate access to repara, with a view to establishing a properly function in theg internal market requires both the possibility of easy recourse to ADR, it is also necessary to guarantee simple, fast and tche existence of an effective system for collective claims, the two being complementaryap access to compensation procedures and, in particular, to facilitate the Europe-wide use of ADR;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points to the importance of rectifying any existing shortcomings with regard to the geographical coverage of ADR in Europe; deplores the major sectoral deficiencies that persist in most Member States, when sector-by-sector coverage would enable the involvement ofile promoting the improvement of a sector-by-sector coverage involving people who understand the way in which a given sector works;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – introductory part
Paragraph 6 – introductory part
6. Proposes that a single European charter be drawn up containing the guideliness part of the legislative proposal on ADR guidelines should be drawn up to be followed in relation to ADR systems established in Europe, these being the following:
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 1
Paragraph 6 – indent 1
– independence, impartiality and confidentiality; when professional mediators are being designated, the possibility of conflicts of interest arising should be avoided; the principle of joint participation by members of consumer associations and organisations representing companies could serve as a useful basis for ensuring the impartiality of the arrangementsdecision;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 2
Paragraph 6 – indent 2
– competence: the professionals in charge must have the specialist ability, training and experience to perform their role; suggests that a quality certificate should be awarded by ISO 9001 certified bodies to identify professional mediation services and provide a guarantee of their rigour and methodology and must be impartial, independent and competent;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 3
Paragraph 6 – indent 3
– efficiency and speed: professional mediators must have adequate means at their disposal (appropriate human, material and financial resources) and be able meet the short deadlines between referral and decision;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 5
Paragraph 6 – indent 5
– free servicesunding: the issue of the cost of ADR should be resolved in order to ensure that such an option is attractive to the parties concerned: a system that is entirely free to the consumer must be consideredthis is particularly important because the involvement of experts can generate substantial costs; in any event, the consumer should be required to pay only a small sum, which, if the case is won, would then be refunded by the unsuccessful party;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 6
Paragraph 6 – indent 6
– freedom of choice and out-of-court nature: ADR must be optional and based on respect for the parties’ freedom of choice throughout the process, allowing them the possibility of choosing, at any time, to settle their dispute before the courts; it must not under any circumstances constitute an initial compulsory step prior to the initiation of legal proceedings, and the decision stemming from it can be binding only if the parties have been informed to that effect beforehand and expressly agree to it; despite such a decision, it must still be possible for the parties to opt for a court hearing;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to look into the wording of the designation ‘alternative dispute settlement as a means to resolve disputes related to commercial transactions and practices in the EU’, as it is somewhat impenetrable and does not lend itself to effective communication; recommends that the designation be simplified in order to create a clearer distinction between this concept and that of recourse to the courts, and to clarify that it concerns only disputes relating to consumer matters; proposes the designations ‘alternative dispute settlement for consumer matters’, ‘out-of- court settlement of consumer disputes’ or ‘mediation of consumer disputes’in particular disputes relating to consumer matters;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Encourages the Commission to make provision for coordination in respect of transnational consumerlegal disputes in order to facilitate access to, and the coordination of, national ADR systems; encourages the Commission also to establish a one-stop- shop and/orprovide, on the home page of its European Judicial Network, in all the official languages, an overview of the relevant national procedures and to publish a single European phone number to facilitate access for the public to existingthe ADR systems in their Member State orand in other Member States, and to issue clear guidelines on their use;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Emphasises that it is crucial to raise consumer awareness of the existence of ADR prior to the initiation of a consumer dispute; proposesuggests that this ‘upstream’ information should include a reference in all contractual documents drawn up by professionals to the possibility of recsoursce to ADR, along with contact details and referral procedures for the relevant ADR systems; however, this requirement should avoid extra costs and bureaucracy;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Emphasises that it is crucial to raise consumer awareness of the existence of ADR prior to the initiation of a consumerlegal dispute; proposes that this ‘upstream’ information should include a reference in all contractual documents drawn up by professionals to the possibility of recourse to ADR, along with contact details and referral procedures for the relevant ADR systems;