Activities of Diana WALLIS related to 2011/2089(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on ‘Towards a Coherent European Approach to Collective Redress’ PDF (280 KB) DOC (175 KB)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (16)
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 2
Subheading 2
Horizontal instrumentframework and safeguards
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Takes the view that disputes frequently cover different industry sectors and different areas of law and that victims of unlawful behaviour face the same difficulties in obtaining redress in different sectors, and is concerned that anyuncoordinated EU initiatives in the field of collective redress will result in a fragmentation of national procedural and damages laws which will weaken and not strengthen access to justice within the EU; in the event that it is decided after due consideration that a Union scheme of collective redress is needed and desirable in a certain area, asks that any proposal in the field of collective redress should take the form of a horizontal instrumentremain coherent with a wider, horizontal framework setting out standards for providing uniform access to justice via collective redress within the EU;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that any horizontal instrumentframework must cover allthe core aspects of obtaining damages collectively; further stresses that, in particular, procedural and international private-law issues must apply to collective actions in general irrespective of the sector concerned, whereas limited sectoral rules, dealing with matters such as the potential binding effect of decisions adopted by national competition authorities in the field of EU antitrust law, should be laid down, for instance, in a separate chapterfall outside the scope of thea horizontal instrument itselfframework;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Believes that the individual damage or loss suffered plays a pivotal role when deciding to file an action, and takes the view that in ls these are inevitably compared with the potential costs of proceedineg with Regulation No 861/2007 on a European Small Claims Procedure, collective redress under a horizontal instrument could be available where the value of each individual claim does not exceed EUR 2 000an action; therefore reminds the Commission of the need for any collective redress instrument to be an efficient and cost-effective tool for all parties;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Considers that EU collective action under a horizontalredress instrument shs would be permissibledeliver most benefit in cases where the defendant and victims represented are not domiciled in the same Member State (cross-border dimension) and wh; however, consideres the rights alleged to have been infringed are granted by EU legislation (infringement of EU law)at it may also be beneficial in cases of infringements of national law which may have large, cross- border implications;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – introductory part
Paragraph 12 – introductory part
12. Reiterates that safeguards have to be put in place in order to avoid unmeritorious claims and misuse of a horizontalny instrument, so as to guarantee equality of arms infair court proceedings, and stresses that such safeguards must cover, inter alia, the following points:
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 1
Paragraph 12 – indent 1
– only a representative body may bring an action on behalf ofthere must be a clearly identified group, and identification of the group members must have taken place before the claim is brought (‘for opt-in procedure’)s;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 1 a (new)
Paragraph 12 – indent 1 a (new)
- Member States should ensure that any potential collective action undergoes a preliminary admissibility check to confirm that the qualifying criteria have been met and that the action is fit to proceed; suggests that this check could be performed by a judge, ombudsman, or another independent, quasi-judicial body;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 2
Paragraph 12 – indent 2
– Member States should also be able to designate organisations qualified to bring representative actions, and without requiring an admissibility check; suggests that European criteria are needed whichwould be useful to clearly define these qualified entities; these criteria could be based on Article 3 of Directive 2009/22/EC on injunctions for the protection of consumer interests*6 but need to be further specified in order to ensure that abusive litigation is avoided; such criteria should cover, inter alia, the financial and human resources of qualifying organisations;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 3
Paragraph 12 – indent 3
– an opt-out system has to be rejected on the grounds that it is contrary to many Member States' constitutions and violates the rights of any victim who might warrants careful consideration on the grounds that it offers efficiency and finality; calls for any proposal to take into account concerns over comparticipate in the procedure unknowingly and yet would be bound by the court's decisbility with Member States’ constitutions;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 5
Paragraph 12 – indent 5
– only the actual damage sustained may be compensated: punitive damages must be prohibitedthe horizontal framework should cover compensation only for the actual damage sustained: the framework should not cover punitive damages; by virtue of the concept of compensation the damages awarded must be distributed to individual victims in proportion to the harm they sustained individually; by and large, contingency fees are unknown in Europe and must be rejectedshould not form part of the mandatory framework;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 6
Paragraph 12 – indent 6
– collective claimants must not be in a better position than individual claimants with regard to access to evidence from the defendant, and each claimant must provide evidence for his claim; an obligation to disclose documents to the claimants (‘discovery’) is mostly unknown in Europe and must be rejected at European levelshould not form part of the mandatory framework;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Considers that this legislation should be identified so as to allow the horizontpinpoint areas where sectoral instrument tos could provide for collective compensatory redress for breach of this legislation, as well as for breach of EU antitrust law; calls for the relevant EU legislation to be listed in an annex to the horizontal instrument;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Encourages the setting-up of ADR schemes at European level so as to allow fast and cheap settlement of disputes as a more attractive option than court proceedings, and calls for a legal obligation fosuggests that any authority performing the preliminary admissibility check for a collective action should also have the power to order the parties involved first to seek a collective consensual resolution of the claim before launching collective court proceedings; believes that the criteria developed by the Court*9 should be the starting point for the establishment of this obligationpower;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Stresses that a horizontal instrumentframework should itself lay down rules to prevent a rush to the courts (‘forum shopping’) and believes that forum shopping cannot be excluded by establwhilst not jeopardishing that the courts where the majority of victims of the infringement of Union law are domiciled or where the major part of the damage occurred are to have jurisdiction, as these flexible rules would leave open the possibility of abusive litigation; considers therefore that the courts with jurisdiction access to justice; and that Brussels I should be taken as a starting point for determining the place where the defendant is domiciled should havecourts with jurisdiction;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Also favours athat the horizontal instrument that providframework provides guidelines for unified rules on the applicable law and calls for further examination of how the conflict-of- law rules can be amended; believes that one solution could be to apply the law of the place where the majority of the victims are domiciled, bearing in mind that individual victims should remain free not to pursue the opt-in collective action but instead to seek redress individually in accordance with the general rules of private international law laid down in the Brussels I, Rome I and Rome II regulations;