BETA

8 Amendments of Bert DOORN related to 2008/2154(INI)

Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Calls on the Commission, with a view to a greater degree of legal certainty and increased consumer protection, to consider proposingarefully assess the establishment of common rules and mechanisms guaranteeing access to full compensation for any individual suffering damage as a result of ajustice in fields that go well beyond breaches of competition law so as to promote a consistent approach;
2008/10/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Considers representative actions brought by qualified entities as a necessaryuseful mechanism, especially in the case of many persons with small claims, for ensuring the compensation of all identifiabled victims;
2008/10/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Commission to provide further guidance at Community level as regards the quantification of damages, provided that damages awarded are not higher than damages actually incurred, and that they ultimately compensate the damage suffered by a precisely defined circle of individual victims;
2008/10/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Supports the view that the costs of legal procedures should not deter complainants from bringing well-founded actions and therefore calls on the Members States to take appropriate measures, such as allowing exceptions or limiting the level of court fees, to reduce the costs associated with antitrust damages actionof the Commission that there is no need to suggest any specific changes to national regimes on procedural costs in favour of claimants;
2008/10/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. SupportsConsiders that the proposed reversal of the burden of proof, to the benefit of indirect purchasers, on the presumption that they bear all overcharges generated by the unlawful practices concerned, may lead to multiple compensation;
2008/10/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that, once a breach of Article 81 or 82 of the EC Treaty has been established, the fault requirement, generates difficulties for victims and prevents them from obtaining due compensation for the damage suffered by a public authority in the course of public enforcement, the claimant should have to prove the defendant's fault to obtain damages in the course of a private damages claim;
2008/10/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Points out that applications for leniency make a major contribution to uncovering cartel law violations, thus preparing the ground for private enforcement in the first place, but that as the Commission cannot release relevant information obtained in the context of its leniency programme, private enforcement thus becomes even more difficult;
2008/10/15
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to adopt a consistent approach between rwait the resulets of collective redress in relation to competition law and rules envisaged in the general framework of consumer protecthe commissioned studies before adopting any legislative proposal in all fields where forms of collective redress are under consideration.
2008/10/15
Committee: IMCO