8 Amendments of Alain LIPIETZ related to 2008/2154(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ruled that individuals and undertakings, with a view to guaranteeing the unrestricted effectiveness of Article 81 of the Treaty, may seek compensation for the damage done to them by a competition violation, 1 Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2007)0152. 2 Case C-295/04 Vincenzo Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA, Case C-296/04 Antonio Cannito v Fondiaria Sai SpA, Case C-29704 Nicolò Tricarico v Assitalia SpA and Case C-298/04 Pasqualina Murgolo v Assitalia SpA [2006] ECR I-06619.confirmed in its judgement of 13 July 2006 in joined Cases C 295/04 to 298/042 that "any individual" who has suffered harm caused by an antitrust infringement must be allowed to claim damages before national courts; and whereas this principle also applies to indirect purchasers, i.e. purchasers who had no direct dealings with the infringer, but who nonetheless may have suffered considerable harm because an illegal overcharge was passed on to them through the distribution chain, Or. en
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the study undertaken for the Commission in 2004 on damage actions indicated that damages for breaches of EU competition law had been awarded in very few cases by national courts; and whereas the fact that damage actions for breach of competition law are underdeveloped in Europe makes a strong case for the development of an effective private enforcement system to ensure that business victims of competition breaches are fully compensated for damage suffered,
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas the issues addressed in the White Paper concern all categories of victim, all types of breach of Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty and all sectors of the economy,
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the abovementioned White Paper and stresses that victims of competition law infringements must be able to claimwhose primary objective is to improve the legal conditions for victims to exercise their right under the Treaty to damages as a result of a breach of the EC antitrust rules; stresses that all victims of competition law infringements must have access to effective redress mechanisms so that they can be fully compensationed for the damage suffered;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that the Commission has not so far stated what legal base ist will be invoking for its proposed measures, and doubts that the Treaty offers a basis for the planned interventions into national damages and procedural law;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Recalls that individual consumers but also small businesses, especially those who have suffered scattered and relatively low-value damage, are often deterred from bringing individual actions for damages by the costs, delays, uncertainties, risks and burdens involved; stresses in this context that collective redress, which allows aggregation of the individual claims of victims of antitrust infringements and enhances their ability to obtain access to justice, is an important tool for deterring breaches of the antitrust rules; welcomes in this respect the Commission’s proposals on mechanisms to be set up to improve collective redress while avoiding excessive litigation;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Points out that at the end of 2008 the Commission’s DG ‘Health and Consumers’ will be publishing the results of two studies on collective law enforcement instruments in the Member States and possible barriers to the single market resulting from the differing legislation in the Member States; points out also that the Commission has announced a Communication for late 2008 on the Community’s possible options for action; stresses that measures at European level must not lead to any fragmentation of procedural law, and asks that we wait for the results of the studies and for the Communication before considering whether, and to what extent, a horizrbitrary and unnecessary fragmentation of nationtal approach should be chosen to facilitate the prosecution of damage compensation claims; calls on the Commission in consequence to undertake an examination of the legal base and the need for a horizontal instrument, and to refrain in the meantime from presenting any collective law enforcement mechanisms for private individuals in the area of EC competition lawcedural law, while securing a level playing-field throughout the EU;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. BelievesShares the views of the Commission that a national court may notshould be bound by a final decision of the national competition authority of another Member State finding a breach of Articles 81 or 82 of the EC Treaty; deems that such a rule would ensure a more consistent application of Articles 81 and 82 by different national bodies and significantly increase the effectiveness and procedural efficiency of actions for antitrust damages;