BETA

11 Amendments of Ieke van den BURG related to 2008/2154(INI)

Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the drawing up of a White Paper to propose a Community-level solution to the problem of ensuring access to justice for claimants seeking low-value damages who have limited means at their disposal, thus pursuing general policy objectives (specifically, ensuring broader access to justice by enforcing competition policy and discouraging unlawful practices on the part of undertakings) while at the same time preventing unmeritorious and opportunistic litigation;
2008/11/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – point b
(b) be basepoints out that the Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and Con a model which can also be applied to other kinds of dispute to provide judicial protection for consumers in similar cases; sumer Protection is publishing in late 2008 the results of two studies of the collective law enforcement mechanisms in the Member States and possible obstruction of the internal market caused by different legislation in the Member States; also points out that the Commission has announced it will be publishing a communication in late 2008 on how the Community might respond; draws attention to the risk that measures at European level may lead to a fragmentation of procedural law and awaits the results of the studies and the communication with interest, so as to examine whether a horizontal approach should be chosen in order to make legal claims for compensation more easily effective; argues, however, that in anticipation of this a specific mechanism for cross-border cases is exceptionally desirable to improve an effective way of dealing with cartels and also to be able to penalise for their unlawful action companies that have been released from the Commission’s cartel fines as part of the clemency programme;
2008/11/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Emphasises that law firms must not be able to start legal proceedings for defendants with the primary aim of earning large sums on the basis of high percentages of compensation paid to the defendants;
2008/11/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that reducing the fine imposed for committing the offence if undertakings offer a just settlement to citizens who have suffered damage would be both materially and procedurally advantageous for such citizens, while a compulsory settlement must not be a way of deterring parties from legal action;
2008/11/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Takes the view that mass and dispersed damages, information asymmetries and other problems encountered in prosecuting damages claims occur not only in EC competition law, but also in other areas such as product liability and other consumer-related matters;
2008/11/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
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; stressespoints out the risk that measures at European level must notcould lead to any fragmentation of procedural law, and asks that wewaits wait forh interest the results of the studies and for the Communication beforein order to considering whether, and to what extent, a horizontal 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 refraargues, however, that in the meantime a specific mechanism for cross- border transactions is highly desirable with a view to establishing a more effective method of tackling cartels and making in the meantime from presenting any collective law enforcement mechanisms for private individuals in the area of EC competition lawt possible to penalise the unlawful actions of companies that were exempted from Commission penalties under the leniency programme;
2008/11/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Takes the view that direct and indirect purchasers should have available to them, for the prosecution of their stand -alone or follow-up claims, individual, collective or representative claims, bearing in mind that a forced agreement must not constitute a means of preventing parties from pursuing a lawsuit;
2008/11/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Takes the view that the Member States, in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 98/27/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 19 May 1998 on injunctions for the protection of consumer interests , should as a general rule give the power to prosecute in representative actions to qualified entities, and that authorisations to pursue such actions should primarily be considered for associations which arrange for actions in law for damages for companies; 1 OJ L 166, 11.6.1998, p. 51. and emphasises that law firms must not be allowed to initiate legal proceedings on behalf of victims with the main aim of earning large amounts of money on the basis of charging high percentages of the damages awarded;
2008/11/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses that collective claimantsaction must not be in a better position thanstand in the way of individual claimantsaction, and calls for application in the context of collective law enforcement mechanisms of the principle that the party bringing the infringement claim must provide evidence for their claim, provided the national law in question does not provide for any lightening of the burden of proof;
2008/11/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Welcomes the Commission’s work on a non-binding guidance framework for the calculation of damages, which must be designed to avoid the situation that pertains in America, where lawyers work for their own profit;
2008/11/18
Committee: ECON
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Considers it desirable to investigate how SMEs can win compensation for any harm via a collective damage claim instrument;
2008/11/18
Committee: ECON