32 Amendments of Bert DOORN
Amendment 4 #
2008/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Urges the Commission to establish a national quality assurance system, in close collaboration with the Member States, which ensures independent and impartiexternal quality assurance for accountancy firms; stresses that, in this connection, the European legislative authority must confine itself to general framework provisions and that it must be left to the sectorprofession to flesh out those rules;
Amendment 7 #
2008/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Notes the Commission's recommendation requesting Member States to limit the liability of accountants, with due regard for their own national legislation and circumstances; endorses the recommendation's objective, through greater convergence between Member States in this area, of achieving a sustainable audit capacity and a competitive market for audit services and of bolstering the level playing field for undertakings and accountancy firms, through greater convergence between Member States in this area; calls on the Commission to inform Parliament no later than in 2010 about the impact of, and the follow-up to, the recommendation, the important issue in this connection being, in particular, whether and to what extent, in accordance with this directive’s objective, the recommendation is leading to more convergence between Member States;
Amendment 9 #
2008/2247(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Welcomes the consultation round initiated by the Commission on ownership rights in accountancy firms and looks forward with interest to the responses of stakeholders;
Amendment 3 #
2008/2154(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
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;
Amendment 6 #
2008/2154(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
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;
Amendment 11 #
2008/2154(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
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;
Amendment 15 #
2008/2154(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
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;
Amendment 19 #
2008/2154(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
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;
Amendment 21 #
2008/2154(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
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;
Amendment 23 #
2008/2154(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Amendment 24 #
2008/2154(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
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.
Amendment 36 #
2008/2056(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Highlights that implementation problems are often detected through the SOLVIT network; notes with concern that SOLVIT centres are often understaffed and that the average handling time of a case is more than 10 weeks; calls on the Member States to ensure that SOLVIT centres are properly staffed and on the Member States and the Commission to improve administrative efficiency in order noticeably to shorten the handling time; calls furthermore on Member States to make a bigger effort in promoting the services of the SOLVIT network through the appropriate information channels in order to increase citizens´ and businesses´ familiarity with SOLVIT.
Amendment 9 #
2008/2045(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Believes that in many cases, thobjective impact assessments constitute an additional bureaucratic requirement which slows down the proceduare an important tool for assessing Commission proposals and calls, therefore, for drawing up legislative proposals without contributing any added value in terms of quality and effectivenesexternal, independent scrutiny of the conduct of impact assessments;
Amendment 10 #
2008/2045(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Takes the view, further, that objective impact assessments must be partly based on early and broad consultation of interested parties; calls on the Commission to incorporate in its impact assessments a comprehensive range of scenarios and policy options (including, where necessary, the ‘do nothing’ option) as the basis for cost-effective and sustainable action;
Amendment 11 #
2008/2045(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Amendment 12 #
2008/2045(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Voices doubts as to the appropriateness of encouragingUrges the Commission, where possible and desirable, to consider self-regulation and co- regulation, which could end up turning into a form of ‘legislative abstinence’ which would encourage only pressure groups and powerful players on the economic stage; for that reason, supports the Commission’s conclusion that regulations continue to be the simplest way of achieving the EU’s objectives and providing both businesses and citiz as serious policy options; draws attention to the advantages of these forms of regulation in reducing and avoiding administrative burdens, with legal security; calls on the Commission to develop a more consistent approach in this connechich are often the result of unnecessarily stringent and detailed legislation;
Amendment 17 #
2008/2045(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Reiterates the need to reduce the unnecessary administrative burdens which companies have to bear in order to meet the information obligations laid down both by European legislation and national provisions for its application; emphasises that the Commission’s target of reducing administrative burdens by 25% by 2012 should be a net target, meaning that reductions in certain areas must not be nullified by new administrative burdens imposed elsewhere; supports the increased use of information and communication technology in this area; calls on the Commission to assess the general administrative burdens borne by all interested parties, even if they are not companies;
Amendment 47 #
2008/0224(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 12 a (new)
Recital 12 a (new)
(12a) Parliamentary assistants who are accredited in one of the three places of work before the date of entry into force of this regulation and have concluded an employment contract under the national law applicable which the appropriate department has registered may, at their request, renew or extend this contract for a transitional period not exceeding three months from the beginning of the new term of office.
Amendment 6 #
2008/0157(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Performers generally start their careers young and the current term of protection of 50 years with regard to performances fixed in phonograms and for phonograms often does not protect their performances during their entire lifetime. Therefore, performers face an income gap at the end of their lifetimes. They are also often not able to rely on their rights to prevent or restrict objectionable uses of their performances that occur during their lifetimes. Therefore, a regime is herewith provided wherein protection of the work expires either 50 years after fixation or communication to the public, or with the decease of the performing artist, whichever period is the longer.
Amendment 12 #
2008/0157(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Recital 7
Recital 7
Amendment 56 #
2008/0157(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 1
Article 1 – point 1
Directive 2006/116/EC
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – sentence 2
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – sentence 2
However, - if a fixation of the performance otherwise than in a phonograph is lawfully published or lawfully communicated to the public within this period, the rights shall expire - 50 years from the date of the first such publication or the first such communication to the public, whichever is the earlier,; or - at the moment of decease of the performing artist whichever period is the longer. - if a fixation of the performance in a phonograph is lawfully published or lawfully communicated to the public within this period, the rights shall expire 95- 50 years from the date of the first such publication or the first such communication to the public, whichever is the earlier; - at the moment of decease of the performing artist whichever period is the longer.
Amendment 60 #
2008/0157(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 2
Article 1 – point 2
Directive 2006/116/EC
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Amendment 69 #
2008/0157(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Directive 2006/116/EC
Article 10 – paragraph 5
Article 10 – paragraph 5
Amendment 99 #
2008/0157(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 4
Article 1 – point 4
Directive 2006/116/EC
Article 10a – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2
Article 10a – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 2
If, onfive years after the moment at which, by virtue of Article 3 (1) and (2) in their version before amendment by Directive [// insert: Nr. of this amending directive]/EC, the performer and the phonogram producer would be no longer protected in regard of, respectively, the fixation of the performance and the phonogram, the phonogram is not made available to the public, by wire or wireless means, in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, the rights of the phonogram producer in the phonogram and the rights of the performers in relation to the fixation of their performance shall expire.
Amendment 56 #
2008/0130(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) In order to enable businesses to reap the full benefits of the internal market and freedom of establishment, as enshrined in the EC Treaty and interpreted by the Court of Justice, the SPE should be able to have its registered office and principal place of business in different Member States and to transfer its registered office from one Member State to another, with or without also transferring its central administration or principal place of business.
Amendment 253 #
2008/0018(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point 17 a (new)
Annex I – point 17 a (new)
17a. Books, including children's books, and other printed matter intended for use by children of less than 14 years of age.
Amendment 16 #
2007/2261(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Underlines the necessity for better control of the sports betting market and preservation of sport’s integrity, asks the Commission to come forward with a proposal ensuring a functioning sports betting market in the European Union on the basis of a State or State-controlled licensing system, providing for Member States to take necessary and appropriate measures against compulsive gambling, respecting the sport event organisers’ rights and, preventing misuse and corruption and allowing the possibility of a stable source of funding to promote professional and amateur sport;
Amendment 1 #
2007/2189(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – introductory part
Paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Urges the Commission to takecarefully assess the issue of consumer redress very seriously bearing in mind the following considerations:
Amendment 2 #
2007/2189(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – indent 2 a (new)
Paragraph 3 – indent 2 a (new)
- safeguarding effective enforcement of rights originating from Community legislation is principally an obligation of Member States. They bear the responsibility to adapt their national (procedural) law in such a way that these rights are readily enforceable, to the benefit of consumers and economic operators. First of all, the Community is not competent to prescribe rules for national procedural law. Moreover, Article 5 of the Treaty requires the Community not to go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaty; consequently, in accordance with that Article, the specific features of national legal systems must as far as possible be taken into account by leaving Member States free to choose between different options having equivalent effect;
Amendment 4 #
2007/2189(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – indent 3
Paragraph 3 – indent 3
- it should be recalled that ADR systems are, by their nature, an alternative solution to traditional black-letter law mechanisms; the incentive to use ADR is therefore dependent on the existence of hard-law alternatives that provide effective, readily accessible and non-discriminatory redress for the consumer, such as collective redress mechanisms;
Amendment 5 #
2007/2189(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – indent 4
Paragraph 3 – indent 4
- the Commission's approach to consumer redress is inchoate and v early stague; work on redress should be closely coordinated with, and integrated into, the future work programmes for judicial cooperation in civil mattersbefore any consideration is given to legislation on the European level, there needs to be a thorough examination of existing problems, if any, and of the envisaged benefits for consumers; considers in that context that, for instance, mass proceedings and cross-border problems need to be addressed specifically;
Amendment 6 #
2007/2189(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – indent 5
Paragraph 3 – indent 5
- extensive research should be done into systems of collective redress, drawing on experience around the world, with a view to coming up with a straightforward system which avoids the worstspecial regard to the excesses and drawbacks of the US model;