Activities of Diana WALLIS related to 2008/2154(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
White Paper on damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules (debate)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (16)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
Paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
(aa) enable access to full compensation of damage for victims of infringements of those rules;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls onSupports the Commission in considering, with a view to a greater degree of legal certainty and increased consumer protection, to consider proposing the establishment of common rules and mechanisms guaranteeingbringing forward the appropriate mix of legislative and non- legislative proposals that will enable access to full compensation for any individual suffering damage as a result of a breach of competition law;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – point b
Paragraph 2 – point b
(b) be based on a model which can also be applied to other kinds of dispute to provide judicial protection for consumers in similar cases, whilst recognising the particular nature of competition law, is also consistent with current and planned EU instruments that provide judicial protection to groups of claimants in other types of dispute;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – point a
Paragraph 3 – point a
(a) exclude the possibility of imposing punitive damages or damages that are disproportionate to the harm actually suffered;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – point a a (new)
Paragraph 3 – point a a (new)
(aa) particularly in the case of collective actions of the type suggested by the Commission, and without unduly delaying proceedings, require that actions be subject to a merits test by a national authorising body (such as a national judge, ombudsman or similar) before they may be commenced;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – point a b (new)
Paragraph 3 – point a b (new)
(ab) particularly in the case of collective actions of the type suggested by the Commission, and without unduly delaying proceedings nor prejudicing the parties, require or recommend that parties attempt to reach a settlement through ADR before commencing an action;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. ConsiderWelcomes the Commission's mix of proposals as regards representative actions brought by qualified entities as a necessary mechanism, especially in the case of many persons with small claims, for ensuring the compensation of all identifiable victimslongside the possibility of opt-in collective actions, which should help ensure the compensation of the greater part of victims; however, considers that further consideration should be given to opt-out collective actions, which have the merit of producing a 'once and for all settlement' for defendants and thus reduce uncertainty;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – point c
Paragraph 3 – point c
(c) uphold the fundamental principle that costs should be borne by the unsuccessful party, possibly on the model of the Swedish system, which distinguishes between parties which bring the action (and, if they are unsuccessful, are responsible for meeting the costs thereof) and parties which ‘opt in’ at a later stage;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – point e
Paragraph 3 – point e
(e) allow the possibility of ‘opt-in’ actions and representative actions brought by qualified entities;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls on the Commission to provide further guidance at Community level as regards the quantification of damages; insists that any such guidance should clearly reject so-called punitive damages or any other mechanism that could lead to damages that are disproportionate to the harm actually suffered;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 – point e a (new)
Paragraph 3 – point e a (new)
(ea) allow parties to ‘opt in’ to actions both before and during proceedings;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Considers that further work is necessary in examining how actions might be financed by claimants; therefore calls upon the Commission to study various funding models to ensure access to justice;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Supports the view that the costs of legal procedures should not deter complainmants 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 actions; however, believes that the Commission needs to do further work in examining how exactly such actions might be financed by claimants and to study various funding models so that access to justice is ensured;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Calls for further consideration to be given to ‘opt-out’ collective actions, which have the merit of producing a ‘once and for all’ settlement for defendants and thus reduce uncertainty;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on the Commission to adopt a consistent approach between rules of collective redress in relation to competition law and rules envisaged in the general framework of consumer protection. 1; asks in this context that the Commission reflect in both areas on amendments and extensions to Directive 98/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests1 which might in the first instance achieve the desired aims without interfering in Member States' national civil and procedural laws. Or. en OJ L 166, 11.6.1998, p. 51.