258 Amendments of Diana WALLIS
Amendment 23 #
Amendment 27 #
2011/2089(INI)
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 #
2011/2089(INI)
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 #
2011/2089(INI)
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 #
2011/2089(INI)
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 #
2011/2089(INI)
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 #
2011/2089(INI)
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 #
2011/2089(INI)
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 #
2011/2089(INI)
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 #
2011/2089(INI)
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 #
2011/2089(INI)
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 #
2011/2089(INI)
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 #
2011/2089(INI)
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 #
2011/2089(INI)
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 #
2011/2089(INI)
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 #
2011/2089(INI)
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;
Amendment 3 #
2011/2072(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Urges the Commission to work with partners and neighbours to establish a special regime for any operations in the Arctic, having careful regard to the sustainability of, and need for, offshore activities in such a vulnerable and unique environment;
Amendment 89 #
2011/2072(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Urges the Commission to work with partners and neighbours to achieve a special regime for any operations in the Arctic having careful regard as to the sustainability and necessity of offshore activities in such a vulnerable and unique environment;
Amendment 27 #
2011/2029(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Points out that, to ensure that the existing, and future, programmes to reduce burdens are successful, active cooperation between the Commission and the Member States is necessary in order to avoid discrepancies in interpretation and the ‘gold-plating’ of legislation (adding more stringent requirements to domestic implementing legislation that are not derived from EU law); emphasises that the use of correlation tables can play a useful role in identifying these discrepancies and cases of gold-plating;
Amendment 3 #
2011/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas Directive 2008/52/EC has also been of interest to neighbouring States and has had a demonstrable influence on the introduction of similar legislation in some of these countries,
Amendment 5 #
2011/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas the Commission’s Action Plan for implementing the Stockholm Programme (COM(2010)171 final) foresees a Communication on the implementation of the mediation directive in 2013,
Amendment 13 #
2011/2026(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Encourages the Commission, in its forthcoming Communication on the implementation of Directive 2008/52/EC, also to examine those areas where Member States have chosen to extend the measures of the Directive beyond its intended scope;
Amendment 6 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, in the wake of the global financial crisis, it appears more important than ever to provide a coherent European contract law regime in order to realise the full potential of the internal market and thus help meet our Europe 2020 goals,
Amendment 32 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
Ha. whereas gradual harmonisation does not effectively overcome obstacles in the internal market resulting from diverging national contract laws,
Amendment 42 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Favours the option of setting up an optional instrument (OI) by means of a regulation; believes that such an OI could be complemented by a ‘toolbox’ that shcould be endorsed by means of an interinstitutional agreement;
Amendment 45 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Believes that only by using the legal form of a Regulation can the necessary clarity and legal certainty be provided;
Amendment 59 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Believes that all parties, be it in B2B or B2C transactions, should be free to choose or not to choose the OI as an alternative to national or international law (opt-in) and therefore calls on the Commission to clarify the intended relationship of an OI with the Rome I Regulation and international conventions including the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG);
Amendment 76 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that both business-to-business and business-to-consumer contracts should be covered; emphasises that the OI must offer a very high level of consumer protection would need to be high, as mandatory national provisions, including in the area of consumer law, would be replaced; believes therefore the level of consumer protection should be higher than the minimum protection provided by the Consumer Acquis and cover as many national mandatory rules as possible; considers that this high level of consumer protection is also in the interests of businesses as they will only be able to reap the benefits of the OI if consumers of all Member States are confident that choosing the OI will not deprive them of protection;
Amendment 93 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Believes that the scope of a ‘toolbox’ could be quite broad, whereas any OI should be limited to the core contractual law issues; 1 Von Bar, Cbelieve, Schulte-Nölke et al. (eds.), Principles, Definitions and Modes that a 'toolbox' should remain coherent with the OI and contain additional Rrules of European Private Law –derived from, inter alia, the academic Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR), 2008. 2 B. Fauvarque-Cosson, D. Mazeaud (dir.), collection 'Droit privé comparé et européen' , Volumes 6 and 7, 2008.1 and the 'Principes contractuels communs' and 'Terminologie contractuelle commune'2; Or. en
Amendment 100 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Sees benefits in an OI containing specific provisions for the most frequent types of contract, in particular for the sale of goods and provision of services; reiterates its earlier call to include insurance contracts within the scope of the OI and based on the Principles of European Insurance Contract Law (PEICL)1, believing that such an instrument could be particularly useful for small-scale insurance contracts; points out that some specific issues in connection with which an OI might be beneficial have been raised, such as digital rights and beneficial ownership; considers that, on the other hand, there might be a need to exclude 1 Project Group “Restatement of European Insurance Contract Law”, status 2009, see: http://www.restatement.info. certain types of complex public law contracts;
Amendment 110 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Believes that whilst an OI will have the effect of providing a single body of law, there will still be a need to seek provision of standard terms and conditions of trade which can be produced in a simple and comprehensible form, available off-the- shelf for SMEs and with some form of trust mark system to ensure consumer confidence; notes that standard contract terms and conditions based upon an OI would offer greater legal certainty than EU-wide standard terms based upon national laws which would increase the possibility for differing national interpretations;
Amendment 114 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Recalls that further work on cross- border alternative dispute resolution (ADR), in particular for SMEs and consumers, remains a priority, but emphasises that, if the parties use one body of law provided by an OI, ADR will be further facilitated; calls on the Commission to consider synergies when putting forward a proposal; notes that the UNCITRAL Working Group on Online Dispute Resolution has also shown interest in an OI as a means to facilitate ADR1 and therefore recommends that the Commission follows developments within the other international bodies;
Amendment 130 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Recalls, in accordance with Better Lawmaking principles, the need for a comprehensive and broad impact assessment, analysing different policy options, including that of not taking Union action, and focusing on both practical issues and the relative impacts of the options on national legal systems;
Amendment 131 #
2011/2013(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Insists that Parliament should be fully consulted and involved in the framework of the ordinary legislative procedure with regard to any future OI to be submitted by the European Commission;
Amendment 76 #
2011/0093(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 4 a (new)
(4a) The application of this Article shall not prejudice the application of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I)1 and Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II)2. ____________________ 1 OJ L 177, 4.7.2008, p. 6. 2 OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p. 40.
Amendment 30 #
2010/2291(ACI)
Proposal for a decision
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Requests that the Bureau of Parliament devise a system whereby all lobbyists falling within the scope of the register who obtain a meeting with a relevant Member about a specific legislative dossier are recorded as having done so in an explanatory memorandum to the report or recommendation relating to the draft legislative act;
Amendment 5 #
2010/2080(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas, next, there is harmonisation or approximation which lends itself to certain areas where standardisation is desirable, if not essential – e.g. in the area of consumer protection, but recourse to which is limited in the AFJS; secondly, there are forward- looking projects such as the CFR which aim at achieving common legal concepts and could be of great assistance, for instance, in the case of contracts concluded via the internet; consideration should also be given to the so-called optional 28th regime as an alternative to the traditional way of harmonising legislation in specific areas,
Amendment 7 #
2010/2080(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital Fa (new)
Recital Fa (new)
Fa. whereas drafting a European Contract Law will be one of the most important initiatives for the AFSJ in the coming years and may result in a so- called optional 28th civil law regime as an alternative to the traditional way of harmonising legislation in specific areas,
Amendment 14 #
2010/2080(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas this is the very stuff of Europe and the challenge of the AFSJ, and should not be seen as contradictory to the development and teaching of a real European legal culture,
Amendment 22 #
2010/2080(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7a (new)
Paragraph 7a (new)
7a. Appreciates the Commission's generous funding of transnational legal training projects in the area of civil justice, but deplores the fact that the funding is very difficult to access and use effectively owing largely to the inflexibility of the current system; notes in addition the problems in recovering expenses incurred during co-financed training programmes and the fact that organising such programmes involves the professional organisation concerned in tying up large amounts of funds for a long period because of the requirements imposed by the Commission; calls therefore for a more flexible and innovative approach on the part of the Commission in order to enable organisations without large cash-flows to apply to operate training schemes;
Amendment 24 #
2010/2080(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9a (new)
Paragraph 9a (new)
9a. Bearing in mind the ambitious goal of the Stockholm programme to offer European training schemes to half of the judges, prosecutors, judicial staff and other professionals involved in European cooperation before 2014, and its call that for this purpose the existing training institutions in particular should be used, calls for the creation without delay of a European Judicial Academy composed of the European Judicial Training Network and the Academy of European Law to provide such training schemes in the necessary dimension;
Amendment 27 #
2010/2080(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that the Commission should give priority to tackling the difficulties brought about by divergences in national procedural law (e.g. in limitation periods and the treatment of foreign law by the courts); suggests, in the light of the key importance of this aspect, that the date for the Commission's report on the functioning of the present EU regime on civil procedural law across borders should be brought forward from 2013 to the end of 2011; urges the Commission to respond to its resolution of 1 February 2007[1] by presenting a proposal for a common limitation period in cross-border disputes involving personal injuries and fatal accidents as a matter of urgency; [1] P6_TA(2007)0020.
Amendment 28 #
2010/2080(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10a (new)
Paragraph 10a (new)
10a. Welcomes the Green Paper of 1 July 2010 on policy options for progress towards a European Contract Law for consumers and businesses[1] and supports the Commission's ambitious initiative towards a European contract law instrument, that can be applied voluntarily by contracting parties; [1] COM(2010)348 final.
Amendment 29 #
2010/2080(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10b (new)
Paragraph 10b (new)
10b. Draws attention to Parliament's resolution of 10 March 2009 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters[1] and urges the Commission to take action to improve cooperation between the Member States' courts for the purposes of taking evidence and enhancing the efficiency of Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001, in particular by ensuring that courts and practitioners are better informed about it and promote the extensive use of information technology and video- conferencing; considers that there should be a secure system for sending and receiving e-mails and that these matters should be taken up under the European e- Justice strategy; [1] P6_TA(2009)0089.
Amendment 30 #
2010/2080(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10c (new)
Paragraph 10c (new)
Amendment 37 #
2010/2080(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14a (new)
Paragraph 14a (new)
14a. Calls upon the Commissioner for Justice to ensure that in future Parliament is more closely involved with the activities of the Commission and the Council at the Hague Conference through Parliament's observer and by means of regular statements to the competent parliamentary committee; in this respect reminds the Commission of the institutional commitments expressed by Commissioner Frattini before Parliament in September 2006 that the Commission will cooperate fully with the Parliament in its work with the Hague Conference;
Amendment 40 #
2010/2080(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14b (new)
Paragraph 14b (new)
14b. Encourages the Commission to play its full role in the work of the Hague Conference; urges the Commission to take steps to ensure that the EU ratifies the Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on the Protection of Children;
Amendment 41 #
2010/2080(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14c (new)
Paragraph 14c (new)
14c. Resolves to set up an interparliamentary forum on the work of the Hague Conference; considers, by way of example only, that the promotion by the Hague Conference of party autonomy in contractual relations worldwide has such serious implications from the point of view of the evasion of mandatory rules such as to warrant its being debated and reflected upon in democratic fora worldwide;
Amendment 42 #
2010/2080(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14d (new)
Paragraph 14d (new)
14d. Welcomes the Commission's efforts to empower citizens to exercise their free movement rights and strongly supports plans to enable the mutual recognition of the effects of civil status documents; calls for further efforts to reduce barriers for citizens who do exercise their rights of free movement, particularly with regard to access to the social benefits to which they are entitled and their right to vote in municipal elections;
Amendment 1 #
2010/2076(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 a (new)
Citation 6 a (new)
- having regard to its resolution of 9 July 2008 on the role of the national judge in the European judicial system,
Amendment 2 #
2010/2076(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that through EU Pilot the Commission is aiming to increase "commitment, co-operation and partnership between the Commission and Member States"*1 and is considering in close cooperation with national administrations how to deal with the application of European Union law; considers that it is thus a form of intergovernmental cooperation which replaces the obligatthis initiative responds to the new need for cooperation between all Institutions of the European Union oin the Commission laid down in Article 17 TEU to "ensure the application of the Treaties, and of measures adopted by the institutions pursuant to them"; 1interests of a well functioning, citizen focused Union following the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty; Or.en EU Pilot Evaluation Report, p. 2.
Amendment 3 #
2010/2076(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that on the one hand citizens are portrayed as having an essential role in ensuring compliance with EU law on the ground*1, whilst on the other – in EU Pilot – they are evencould be further excluded from any subsequent procedure; considers that this is not in loutcome should be avoided by treating the Pilot as a ‘mediation’ type alternative ine withich the Treaties" solemn declarationcitizens are fully involved and integrated as the initiating complainant, considers that this would better reflect the Treaty aims that "‘decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen"’ (Article 1 TEU), that "‘the Union institutions ... shall conduct their work as openly as possible"’ (Article 15 TFEU) and that "‘[I]n all its activities, the Union shall observe the principle of the equality of its citizens, who shall receive equal attention from its institutions"’ (Article 9 TEU);
Amendment 26 #
2010/2021(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Is of the opinion that the exchange of information prior to a revocation should take place as a matter of transparency, courtesy and loyal cooperation between the institutions concerned, and not as a formal obligation; however, deems it redundant and confusing to introduce a specific obligation requiring a statement of reasons for the adoption of certain legal acts in addition to the general requirement laid down in Article 296 TFEU which is applicable to all legal actsthat a specific obligation requiring a statement of intention must be established thereby ensuring that all institutions are fully aware of the possibility of revocation in good time;
Amendment 59 #
2010/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 a (new)
Paragraph 37 a (new)
37a. Stresses that apart from the usual parliamentary impact assessments commissioned by committees there should be a strengthened possibility for committees to request assessment of the added-value of European legislation, as proposed by the Bureau;
Amendment 60 #
2010/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 b (new)
Paragraph 37 b (new)
37b. Calls in addition for individual MEPs to have the scope to request small studies to provide them with relevant facts or statistics in areas relating to their parliamentary work, and suggests that such studies may be undertaken by the European Parliament's library to complement its current functions;
Amendment 61 #
2010/2016(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 c (new)
Paragraph 37 c (new)
37c. Calls therefore for the European Parliament's Bureau to adopt plans for the European Parliament's library to provide members with this service; stresses that any plans should be based on the best practices of parliamentary libraries, including those of Member States, and should be carried out, according to strict rules and in full cooperation with the research function serving committees;
Amendment 67 #
2010/0383(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. Persons not domiciled in any of the Member States may be sued in the courts of a Member State only by virtuealso avail themselves of the rules set out in Sections 2 to 8 of this Chapter as against a defendant not domiciled in a Member State.
Amendment 68 #
2010/0383(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Without prejudice to paragraph 2 and subject to Articles 22 and 23, the jurisdiction of the courts of each Member State as against a defendant not domiciled in a Member State shall be determined by the law of the Member State concerned.
Amendment 69 #
2010/0383(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 b (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. As against a defendant not domiciled in a Member State, persons domiciled in a Member State may, whatever their nationality, avail themselves in that Member State of the rules of jurisdiction there in force in the same way as nationals of that Member State.
Amendment 72 #
2010/0383(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – point 2 a (new)
Article 5 – point 2 a (new)
2a. in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict arising out of environmental damage or damage sustained by persons or property as a result of such damage, the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur, unless the person seeking compensation for damage chooses to sue in the courts for the place where the event giving rise to the damage occurred, including the place where the decision leading to the tort, delict or quasi-delict was adopted;
Amendment 74 #
2010/0383(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – point 1
Article 6 – point 1
1. where he is domiciled in a Member State and is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any one of them is domiciled, provided the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings;
Amendment 75 #
2010/0383(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8
Article 8
In matters relating to insurance, jurisdiction shall be determined by this Section, without prejudice to Article 4(2a) and point 5 of Article 5.
Amendment 76 #
2010/0383(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – introductory wording
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – introductory wording
1. In matters relating to a contract concluded by a person, the consumer, for a purpose which can be regarded as being outside his trade or profession, jurisdiction shall be determined by this Section, without prejudice to Article 4(2a) and point 5 of Article 5, if:
Amendment 78 #
2010/0383(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1
1. In matters relating to individual contracts of employment, jurisdiction shall be determined by this Section, without prejudice to Article 4(2a), point 5 of Article 5 and point 1 of Article 6(1).
Amendment 81 #
2010/0383(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – introductory wording
Article 22 – introductory wording
The following courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction regardless of domicile:
Amendment 84 #
2010/0383(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – introductory wording
Article 25 – introductory wording
Where no court of a Member State has jurisdiction in accordance with Articles 25 to 24, jurisdiction shall lie with the courts of thea Member State where property belonging to the defendant is located, provided thatshall have jurisdiction as against a defendant domiciled in a Member State:
Amendment 85 #
2010/0383(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – point a
Article 25 – point a
Amendment 88 #
2010/0383(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – point b
Article 25 – point b
Amendment 89 #
2010/0383(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
1. in matters relating to a contract concluded with a defendant who pursues commercial or professional activities, or who by any means directs such activities to that Member State or to several States including that Member State, if the contract falls within the scope of those activities; 2. in matters relating to a non-contractual obligation which is closely connected with the defendant's commercial or professional activities in, or directed to, that Member State or to several States including that Member State; 3. in matters relating to a non-contractual obligation which is closely connected with a contract between the parties, if the court of that Member State has jurisdiction in matters relating to that contract under point 1 of Article 5; 4. in matters relating to a contract, if the law of that Member State has been chosen by the parties to govern the contract between them.
Amendment 90 #
2010/0383(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – introductory wording
Article 26 – introductory wording
Where no court of a Member State has jurisdiction under this Regulation, the courts of a Member State mayshall have jurisdiction, on an exceptional basis, hear the casas against a defendant domiciled in a Member State if the right to a fair trial or the right to access to justice so requires, in particular:
Amendment 92 #
2010/0383(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – final wording
Article 26 – final wording
and the dispute has a sufficient connection withclaimant is domiciled in the Member State of the court seised.
Amendment 97 #
2010/0383(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 29 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The courts of a Member State whose jurisdiction is contested on the ground that the parties have agreed that the court or courts of another Member State are to have exclusive jurisdiction under Article 23(1) shall, unless their own jurisdiction is based on Article 22 or Article 23, stay proceedings once the court or courts of the Member State which are claimed to have been chosen are seised of proceedings to determine, as their main object or as an incidental question, the existence, validity or effects of the choice of court agreement with respect to the dispute between the parties concerned. This paragraph shall apply regardless of which court was first seised. This paragraph shall not apply in relation to disputes concerning matters referred to in Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Chapter II.
Amendment 101 #
2010/0383(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 2
Article 32 – paragraph 2
Amendment 106 #
2010/0383(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – introductory wording
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – introductory wording
1. Notwithstanding the rules in Articles 3 to 7, if either proceedings in relation to the same cause of action and between the same parties are pendingor related proceedings are pending at the same time before the courts of a third State at a time whend a court in a Member State is seised, that court may, the latter court may, on the application of a party, stay its proceedings if:
Amendment 107 #
2010/0383(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 108 #
2010/0383(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) it may be expected that the court in the third State will, within a reasonable time, render a judgment that will be capable of recognition and, where applicable, enforcement in that Member State, except where there are sufficient assets located in the third State to satisfy a judgment given in favour of the claimant; and
Amendment 109 #
2010/0383(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 34 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the court is satisfied that it is necessary for the proper administration of justice to do soof the Member State is satisfied that to stay the proceedings before it is in the interests of justice and the courts of the third State are clearly more appropriate to determine the case than the forum courts.
Amendment 110 #
2010/0383(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 4
Article 34 – paragraph 4
4. The court shall dismiss the proceedings upon application by either party or of its own motion if the proceedings in the court of the third State are concluded and have resulted in a judgment enforceable in that State, or capable of recognition and, where applicable, enforcement in the Member State.
Amendment 111 #
2010/0383(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 34 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. The sets of proceedings referred to in paragraph 1 shall be deemed to constitute related actions within the meaning of Article 30(3).
Amendment 112 #
2010/0383(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 a (new)
Article 34 a (new)
Amendment 113 #
2010/0383(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 b (new)
Article 34 b (new)
Amendment 114 #
2010/0383(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 40 – paragraph 1 a (new)
With the exception of protective measures under the first paragraph, no enforcement measure shall be ordered unless either: (a) the applicant has, not less than 14 days before the date upon which the enforcement measure is sought, served on the party against whom the measure is sought a copy of the certificate referred to in Article 42(1) or (2) in accordance with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007, where applicable; or (b) it is impracticable to serve judicial documents on the party against whom the enforcement measure is sought, and the applicant has taken reasonable steps to bring the contents of the judgment to the notice of the party against whom the measure is sought.
Amendment 115 #
2010/0383(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 42 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) if the competent authority of the Member State of enforcement so requires, a certificate in the form set out in Annex I confirming that the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 40 have been satisfied.
Amendment 72 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) It is necessary to establish the minimum number of Member States from which citizensignatories must come. In order to ensure that a citizens' initiative is representative of a Union interestcomes from a significant number of Member States, this number should be set at one third of Member Statesnine.
Amendment 92 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) It is appropriate to provide that, where a citizens' initiative has received the necessary statements of support from signatories and provided it is considered admissible, each Member State should be responsible for the verification and certification of statements of support collected from citizens coming fromin that State. Taking account of the need to limit the administrative burden for Member States, they should, within a period of three months, carry out such verifications on the basis of appropriate checks, which may be based on random sampling, and should issue a document certifying the number of valid statements of support received.
Amendment 95 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) The Commission should examine a citizens' initiative and set out its conclusions and the actions it envisages to take in response to it, within a period of four monthslegal and political conclusions separately; it should also set out the actions it envisages to take in response to it. In order to demonstrate that a citizens' initiative is supported by at least one million signatories and that its possible follow-up is carefully examined, the Commission should explain in a clear, comprehensible and detailed manner the reasons for its intended action, and should likewise give reasons if it does not envisage taking any action.
Amendment 107 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point 1
Article 2 – point 1
1. "Citizens"’ initiative" means an initiative, submitted to the Commission in accordance with the present Regulation, inviting the Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties, which has received the support of at least one million eligible signatories coming from at least one third of allnine Member States;
Amendment 111 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point 2
Article 2 – point 2
2. "Signatories"” means citizens of the Unionall legally resident inhabitants of the Member States that have supported a given citizens"’ initiative by completing a statement of support for that initiative;
Amendment 122 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. In order to be eligible to support a proposed citizens' initiative, signatories shall be citizens oflegally resident within the Union and shall be of the age to be entitled to vote in the European electionsat least 16 years of age.
Amendment 133 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. Proposed citizens' initiatives which can be reasonably regarded as improper because they are abusive or devoid of seriousness will not be registered. The Commission shall register a proposed initiative within two months from its receipt when the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) the citizens' committee has been formed and the contact persons have been designated; (b) there are no manifest, significant inconsistencies between the different language versions of the title, subject- matter and objectives of the proposed initiative; (c) the initiative manifestly falls within the competences of the Union as conferred on the Union by Member States and falls within the framework of the powers of the Commission to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties; (d) the proposed initiative is not manifestly abusive, frivolous or vexatious; (e) the proposed initiative is not manifestly contrary to the values of the Union as set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union.
Amendment 158 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. The signatories of a citizens' initiative shall come from at least one third ofnine Member States.
Amendment 164 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. In one third ofnine Member States, the number of signatories shall comprise at least the minimum number of citizens set out in Annex Inform to the formula of degressive proportionality as established in the current distribution of seats in the European Parliament.
Amendment 177 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
aa. receive the organisers at an appropriate level to allow them to explain in detail the matters raised by the initiative;
Amendment 181 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a b (new)
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a b (new)
ab. consider the organisation of a public hearing on the subject-matter of the initiative, to which the European Parliament, through its responsible committee, may be invited to participate;
Amendment 184 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b
b. examine the citizens' initiative and, within 4within three months, set out in a communication its legal and political conclusions on the initiative, the action it intends to take, if any, and its reasons for doing or not doing so.
Amendment 189 #
2010/0074(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
ba. present a legislative proposal within one year or include the proposal in its next year's Work Programme. If the Commission does not so act it shall give the organisers as well as the European Parliament a detailed explanation.
Amendment 6 #
2009/2214(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 9 a (new)
Citation 9 a (new)
– having regard to the Resolution of the European Parliament of 9 October 2008 on Arctic governance1 1 OJ C 9 E, 15.1.2010, p. 41.
Amendment 14 #
2009/2214(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the Commission communication constitutes a formal first step in answering the European Parliament's call for the formulation of an EU Arctic policy; whereas the Council Conclusions on Arctic Issues should be recognised as a further step in the definition of an EU policy on the Arctic,
Amendment 16 #
2009/2214(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the European Parliament has been an active participant in the work of the Standing Committee of Arctic Parliamentarians through its Delegation for relations with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway for a period of some two decades culminating in the hosting of the full Conference of the Parliamentarians of the Arctic in Brussels in September 2010,
Amendment 57 #
2009/2214(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes other cooperation initiatives on secure and safe shipping in the Arctic and on better access to the Northern Sea Route; however would emphasise that this is not just a matter of commercial traffic and would draw attention to the large and increasing level tourist ship traffic in the Arctic region many of which tourists are EU citizens and whose safety could be compromised;
Amendment 117 #
2009/2214(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Recognises the institutions and the broad framework of international law and agreements that govern areas of importance to the Arctic such as UNCLOS, the IMO, the OSPAR Convention7 , the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), CITES8 and the Stockholm Convention as well as the existing numerous bilateral agreements and frameworks, in addition to the national regulations in place in the Arctic states; thus concludes that the Arctic region is not to be regarded as a legal vacuum, but as an area with well developed tools for governancean increasingly complex web of international regulatory tools; nevertheless points out that, due to the challenges of climate change and increasing economic development, those existing rules need to be further developed, strengthened and implemented by all parties concerned and would perhaps benefit from a more coherent overarching governance framework;
Amendment 139 #
2009/2214(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Is of the opinion that a strengthened AC should both play a leading role in cooperation on the Arctic and be sure to include relevant non-Arctic playersshould be urgently administratively and politically strengthened particularly by the establishment of a permanent secretariat, a more equal sharing of costs between members, more frequent ministerial meetings and greater involvement of the Parliamentarians of the Arctic to underline the parliamentary dimension and be sure to include relevant non-Arctic players; and furthermore insists that continued high level meetings of an inner exclusive core of states will merely undermine the status and role of the AC as a whole;
Amendment 141 #
2009/2214(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Confirms its support for EU membership at the very least at the level of permanent observer status for the EU in the AC; asks the Commission to keep Parliament duly informed about meetings and work in the AC and its Working Groups; stresses meanwhile that the EU and its Member States are already present as members or observers in international organisations with relevance to the Arctic such as the IMO, OSPAR, NEAFC and the Stockholm Convention and should more coherently focus on the work in these organisations; underlines in this regard also the need for coherence in all EU policies towards the Arctic;
Amendment 149 #
2009/2214(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Requests the Commission to set up a permanent inter-service structure to ensure a coherent, coordinated and integrated policy approach across key policy areasStresses meanwhile that the EU and its Member States are already present as members or observers in international organisations with relevantce to the Arctic, such as the environment, energy, transport and fisheries; IMO, OSPAR, NEAFC and the Stockholm Convention and should more commends integratherently focus on the work ing the Arctic Service working in DG MARE into this structure; further recommends creatse organisations; underlines in this regard also the need for coherence ing a coordinating unit in the EEAS accordinglyll EU policies towards the Arctic;
Amendment 157 #
2009/2214(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Is of the opinion that the EU should develop further its capacities and calls on the Commission to explore and report on the establishment or continuation of EU activities in the Arctic such as a circumpolar joint multilateral research funding programme providing for easier and less bureaucratic cooperation, joint projects of the research community, and an EU Arctic Information Centre that; calls for the Commission to establish an EU Arctic Information Centre and Network, keeping in mind the proposal of setting up the Centre of the Network at the Arctic Centre of the University of Lapland, based on the Commission Arctic Communication and Council Arctic Conclusions and taking note of the 15 September 2010 Conference Statement of the Ninth Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, and that the EU Arctic Information Centre should be capable of organiszing permanent EU outreach to the major actors and stakeholders in the Arctic and globally, as well as of channelling information and services on the Arctic towards the European Institutionsstakeholders and the civil society;
Amendment 1 #
2009/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas abolition of exequatur – the Commission’s main objective – would expedite the free movement of judicial decisions and form a key milestone in the building of a European judicial area,
Amendment 14 #
2009/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls for the requirement for exequatur to be abolished, but considers that this must be balanced by stringentappropriate safeguards designed to protect the rights of the judgment debtordefence; takes the view that provision willmight have to be made for a special review procedure applicable to a limited category of cases only and conducted a posteriori on the judgment debtordefendant’s application;
Amendment 19 #
2009/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Argues not only that the requirement for a certificate of authenticity mustcould be maintained, but also that there should be a standard form for that certificate as a procedural aid so as to guarantee recognition and facilitate translation, in which case there should be a standard form for that certificate; furthermore considers that such a certificate could be so central to the smooth functioning of the Regulation that a model certificate should be annexed to the Regulation itself;
Amendment 24 #
2009/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Considers that authentic instruments, and those instruments having equivalent legal effects under their respective national law, should not be directly enforceable without the possibility of review by the judicial authorities in the State in which enforcement is sought; takes the view that the special review procedure to be introduced should not be limited to cases where enforcement of the instrument is manifestly contrary to public policy in the State addressed since it is possible to conceive of circumstances in which an authentic act could be irreconcilable with an earlier judgment and the validity (as opposed to the authenticity) of an authentic act can be challenged in the courts of the State of origin on grounds of mistake, misrepresentation, etc. even during the course of enforcement;
Amendment 37 #
2009/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Takes the view that an autonomous European definition of the domicile (ultimately applicable to all European legal instruments) of natural persons would be desirable, in order in particular to avoid situations in which persons may have more than one domicile and would favour a single definition of the domicile of companies, while appreciating the considerable difficulties involved;
Amendment 41 #
2009/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Considers that, in order to overcome the problem of ‘torpedo actions’, the court second seised should be relieved from the obligation to stay proceedings under the lis pendens rule where the court first seised evidently has no jurisdiction; rejects the idea, however, that claims for negative declaratory relief should be excluded altogether from the first-in-time rule on the ground that such claims can have a legitimate commercial purpose; considers, however, that issues concerning jurisdiction would be best resolved in the context of proposals to create a Unified Patent Litigation System;
Amendment 55 #
2009/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
Amendment 56 #
2009/2140(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Stresses the need for consistency between any proposals for special jurisdiction rules for collective actions and the Commissions' forthcoming work on collective redress instruments;
Amendment 3 #
2009/2139(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas, in many instances, citizens petition Parliament about decisions taken by the competent administrative or judicial authorities within Member States; in this sense citizens need mechanisms through which they can call national authorities to account for their part in both the European legislative process and in the legislative enforcement process,
Amendment 32 #
2009/2139(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Encourages Member States to be prepared to play a more transparent and proactive part in responding to petitions related to the implementation and enforcement of European law.
Amendment 33 #
2009/2139(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 b (new)
Paragraph 23 b (new)
23b. Considers that, in light of the Lisbon Treaty', the Petitions Committee of this Parliament should forge closer working links with similar committees in Member States' national and regional parliaments in order to promote mutual understanding of petitions on European issues and to ensure the swiftest response to citizens at the most appropriate level.
Amendment 133 #
2009/0157(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18 a (new)
Recital 18 a (new)
(18a) In the case of lifetime gifts made by the deceased, the donee and third parties should be protected against the effects of subsequent changes to the applicable succession law. A claim for restitution of a gift under the law applicable to the succession should be allowed only to the extent that the gift could also be reclaimed under the law hypothetically governing the succession to the donor's estate at the time when the gift was made.
Amendment 151 #
2009/0157(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 3 – point i
Article 1 – paragraph 3 – point i
(i) the constitution, functioning and dissolving of trusts except trusts created by testamentary dispositions or by the rules on intestacy;
Amendment 178 #
Amendment 180 #
2009/0157(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16
Article 16
Unless otherwise provided for in this Regulation, the law applicable to the successiestate of a deceased person as a whole shall be thate law of the State in which the deceased had their habitual residence at the time of twas habitually resident at the time of his or her death and had also been resident for a period of not less than four years immediately preceding his or heir death.
Amendment 184 #
2009/0157(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 185 #
2009/0157(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 16 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Where, by way of exception, it is clear from all the circumstances of the deceased that at the time of his or her death he or she was manifestly more closely connected with a State other than the State the law of which would otherwise be applicable under this Article, the law applicable to his or her succession shall be the law of that other State.
Amendment 190 #
2009/0157(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 1
1. A person may choose as the law to govern the succession as a whole the internal law of the State whose nationality they possess(excluding its rules of private international law) the nationality of which he or she possesses at the time of making the choice. The choice of law shall also be valid if a person possesses, at the time of his or her death, the nationality of the State whose law he or she has chosen.
Amendment 200 #
2009/0157(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 a (new)
Article 19 a (new)
Article 19a Restitution by donees of lifetime gifts 1. The restitution by the donee of a lifetime gift may be claimed under the law applicable to the succession according to this Regulation only to the extent that such restitution could also be claimed under the law which would, by virtue of this Regulation, have governed the succession to the donor's estate at the time when the gift was made. 2. For the purposes of applying paragraph 1, a choice of law made by the donor in accordance with Articles 17, 18(3) and 18a(3) shall only be entertained if the donee knew of the choice of law at the time when the gift was made.
Amendment 204 #
2009/0157(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – introductory wording
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – introductory wording
2. TNotwithstanding the law applicable to the succession shall be no obstacle to the application of, where the law of a Member State in which succession property is located requires the appointment of an administrator of the estate or an executor of the will, the law of theat Member State in whichshall apply in relation to theat property ias located where itregards the following matters:
Amendment 207 #
2009/0157(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) subjects the administration and liquidation of the succession to the appointment of anthe administrator or the executor of the will viaby an authority located in thisat Member State. The law applicable to the succession shall govern the determination of the persons, such as the heirs, legatees, executors or administrators of the will, who are likely to be appointed to administer and liquidate the succession;
Amendment 208 #
2009/0157(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) subjects the final transfer of the inheritance to the beneficiaries to the prior payment of taxesthe powers and duties of any appointed administrator or executor which are exercisable in relationg to the successionassets located in that Member State.
Amendment 210 #
2009/0157(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 21 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Any administrator or executor appointed under that law shall also be entitled, pursuant to that law, to discharge the debts of the deceased, whether or not they are located in that Member State. However, the order of priority for the discharge of all such debts shall be determined in accordance with the law applicable to the succession. As regards the appointment of such administrators or executors, the authority of the Member State concerned shall appoint the following persons to act there in that capacity: (a) any persons entrusted with the administration of the estate by a court on which jurisdiction has been conferred in relation to the succession; or (b) where no person has been so entrusted, any persons entitled as heirs pursuant to the law applicable to the succession; or (c) such other persons as that authority shall appoint; Appointments made under point (c) may only be made by way of exception and only in cases where the persons entitled as heirs under the law applicable to the succession are either insufficient or excessive in number under the law of the Member State where the authority is situated or are not qualified to act as administrators or executors for a reason concerning the public policy (ordre public) of that Member State.
Amendment 214 #
Amendment 215 #
2009/0157(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26
Article 26
Where this Regulation provides for the application of the law of a Member State, it means the rules of law in force in that State other than its rules of private international law.
Amendment 217 #
2009/0157(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 26 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Where this Regulation provides for the application of the law of a non-Member State, the rules of private international law of that State shall apply where they designate, as to matters of succession, the law of any Member State; the law of that Member State shall apply except for its rules of private international law.
Amendment 218 #
2009/0157(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 26 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Notwithstanding the contents of paragraphs 1 and 1a, where Article 17, 18, 18a, 18b or 20 provides for the application of the law of a State, this means the rules of law in force in that State other than its rules of private international law.
Amendment 237 #
2009/0157(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 41 – paragraph 2 – point k a (new)
Article 41 – paragraph 2 – point k a (new)
(ka) where applicable, a copy of the last will and testament of the deceased.
Amendment 11 #
2008/2337(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Notes with disappointment that in this parliamentary term there has been no significant progress with regard to the vital role that Parliament should play in monitoring the application of Community law; considers that the prioritisation of infringement procedures by the Commission involves political and not merely technical decisions which are currently not subject to any form of external scrutiny, control or transparency; calls for the related reforms proposed by the Working Party on Reform of the European Parliament, which enhance Parliament’s own capacity to monitor the application of Community law, to be promptly implemented;
Amendment 3 #
2008/2237(INI)
Draft opinion
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas SMEs are not provided with sufficient support to defend themselves against unfair commercial practices that are conducted cross-border, such as those of misleading business directory companies,
Amendment 17 #
2008/2237(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Supports calls for the provision of advisory services by Member States to help SMEs defend themselves against unfair commercial practices, such as those of misleading directory companies, which should strengthen SMEs' confidence to operate cross-border; emphasises the importance of the Commission's role both in facilitating the coordination of, and in cooperating with, such advisory services to ensure the appropriate and efficient handling of cross-border complaints; insists, however, that in the event that such soft measures do not produce results, the Commission should be ready to initiate the appropriate legislative changes which would provide SMEs with similar protection to consumers where they are the weaker party in such transactions;
Amendment 4 #
2008/2233(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the avoidance, late payment and non-payment of debts is often exacerbated by insufficient care by the parties at the time of their pre-contractual and contractual dealings; whereas there is a need for greater emphasis on commercial awareness and the possible use of 'European' style optional clauses under the Common Frame of Reference (CFR) which would ensure that parties properly consider these issues at the beginning of their commercial relationship,
Amendment 5 #
2008/2233(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas there are indications that the Late Payments Directive1 is not sufficiently respected or known; whereas if this Directive were now updated and properly implemented it could have considerable impact in reducing late or non-payment, 1 Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ L 200, 8.8.2000, p. 35).
Amendment 6 #
2008/2233(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C c (new)
Recital C c (new)
Cc. whereas there are huge divergences under national contract and insolvency law as to how creditors might secure their debt at the point of contract, particularly by the use of retention-of-title clauses or other such mechanisms which are sometimes circumvented because of these divergences,
Amendment 19 #
2008/2233(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that such a manual, to be made available on the European Judicial Network, could be useful at best as a general guide to what is available in other jurisdictionsto act as guide on how to enforce cross-border debt in each Member State;
Amendment 26 #
2008/2233(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that the question of improving access to commercial registers on a non- discriminatory basis can be dealt with under the e-Justice programme, provided that the right to privacy, including data protection, is protected; considers that the carrying out of a stock-taking exercise of commercial registers will improve access to such registers;
Amendment 35 #
2008/2233(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Considers that the idea of improved cooperation between public enforcement bodies mayshould be wofurther exploring furthered, but points out that such bodies do not exist in all the Member States; considers it would be beneficial to cross-border creditors if the possibility existed to turn to their national authority, which would carry out the actual search to identify their assets on their behalf;
Amendment 40 #
2008/2233(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Urges that any European Assets Declaration should be additional to and not replace existing national instruments; considers that in any declaration of assets, assets that are not owned by the debtor (such as leased assets) should be expressly identified and indicated separately from any debtor’s owned assets;
Amendment 51 #
2008/2233(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21a. Urges the Commission fully to consider pre-contractual and contractual measures that could be linked with the development of the CFR and any optional instrument leading from the same so as to ensure that parties to European cross- border contracts consider issues of late payment and non-payment when contracting;
Amendment 52 #
2008/2233(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 b (new)
Paragraph 21 b (new)
21b. Eagerly anticipates the review of the Late Payments Directive and urges the Commission to proceed with this as quickly as possible given the current economic climate;
Amendment 53 #
2008/2233(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 c (new)
Paragraph 21 c (new)
21c. Suggests that a study should be carried out in respect of the divergent national legal approaches to retention of title and other similar mechanisms with a view to ensuring their mutual recognition;
Amendment 5 #
2008/2169(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Recognises that questions of eligibility need to be addressed, and in that context considers that flexibility should be shown with regard to what precisely constitutes the “several Member States” from which the one million-plus signatures should be drawn; similarly, in line with the practice used for petitions, considers that the possibility of supporting a Citizens' Initiative should be open to all EU citizens and residents without qualification in relation to age or other discriminatory elementpersons entitled to vote at European Parliament elections.
Amendment 2 #
2008/2154(INI)
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 #
2008/2154(INI)
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 #
2008/2154(INI)
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 #
2008/2154(INI)
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 #
2008/2154(INI)
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 #
2008/2154(INI)
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 #
2008/2154(INI)
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 #
2008/2154(INI)
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 #
2008/2154(INI)
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 #
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; 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 #
2008/2154(INI)
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 #
2008/2154(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Amendment 14 #
2008/2154(INI)
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 #
2008/2154(INI)
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 #
2008/2154(INI)
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 #
2008/2154(INI)
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.
Amendment 1 #
2008/2126(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Citation 9 (new)
Citation 9 (new)
– having regard to the study entitled "Misleading practices of ‘directory companies’ in the context of current and future internal market legislation aimed at the protection of consumers and SMEs" (IP/A/IMCO/FWC/2006- 058/LOT4/C1/SC6), commissioned by its Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection,
Amendment 22 #
2008/2126(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes the efforts made by European and national business organisations to raise awareness among their members and calls on them to intensify their efforts so that fewer people become victims of misleading business directories in the first place; expresses concern that some of these organisations have consequently been pursued through the courts by the misleading business directories specified in their awareness- raising activities on the basis of alleged defamation or similar accusations;
Amendment 25 #
2008/2126(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Regrets that Directive 2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertising which applies to business-to- business transactions as in this case, appears to be either insufficient in providing an effective remedy or inadequately enforced by Member States; requests the Commission to report by December 2009 on the feasibility and possible consequences of amending Directive 2006/114/EC in such a way as to include a "black" or "grey" list of practices that are to be regarded as misleading;
Amendment 29 #
2008/2126(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Regrets that Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices does not cover business-to- business transactions and that Member States appear reluctant to extend its scope; notes, however, that Member States may unilaterally extend the scope of their national consumer legislation to business- to-business transactions and actively encourages them to do so; requests the Commission to report by December 2009 on the feasibility and possible consequences of extending the scope of Directive 2005/29/EC to cover business-to-business contracts with specific regard to point 21 of Annex I thereto;
Amendment 34 #
2008/2126(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Amendment 9 #
2008/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Annex – Recommendation 2 – section 1 – point a
Annex – Recommendation 2 – section 1 – point a
(a) The Commission should set up suitable machinery to ensure that all future legislation in the field of civil law is designed to enable it to be used in on-line applications. For example, steps could be taken to ensure that the proposed European Private Company can be set up using online applications and that proposals on the recognition of instruments such as those dealing with the legal protection of adults and other authentic acts are adapted for online use. Accordingly, where proposals are made involving forms intended to be filled out by citizens, the forms should be designed and formatted ab initio for electronic use and available in all official languages of the Member States. Action should be taken to reduce to a minimum the need to input free text and to ensure that, where necessary, on-line help is provided in all official languages and on- line electronic translation services are available. By the same token, where there is a need to provide for service of documents, provision should be made to ensure that documents can be served and communications effected by electronic mail and signatures provided electronically and, where there is a need for oral testimony, the use of video-conferencing should be encouraged.
Amendment 14 #
2008/2125(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Annex – Recommendation 2 – section 4 – point b – subparagraph 3 a (new)
Annex – Recommendation 2 – section 4 – point b – subparagraph 3 a (new)
Finally, the contact points of the European Judicial Network in Civil and Commercial Matters in the Member States should be encouraged to play an active role in the development of European e- Justice by contributing to the conception and design of the future portals, including the citizens' e-Justice portal, as part of the Community's e-justice policy, designed in particular to afford direct access to justice for citizens. As an initial step, the Internet sites of the national Ministries of Justice should include a link to the site of the European Judicial Network.
Amendment 1 #
2008/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas, in its aforesaid Communication on the Hague Programme, the Commission recognised that in the field of civil justice one key aspect that needs to be addressed is the recognition of public documents; whereas, in this respect, there is an urgent need to promote the recognition and enforcement of authentic acts, as defined in the Unibank judgment; whereas, having regard to the different legal systems in the European Union, it is important to ensure that, in addition to authentic acts, agreements between the parties that are enforceable in the Member State in which they were concluded are recognised and declared enforceable under the same conditions as judgments,
Amendment 4 #
2008/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas the prerequisite for the probative value of an authentic act is recognition of its authenticity, in that it emanates from a public official or professional adviser vested with the power to draw up authentic acts or any analogous formal legal documents which record a legal fact or act or from a public authority; whereas mutual trust in the legal systems of the Member States justifies making authenticity verification procedures only applicable in future when serious doubts arise as to the veracity of the document,
Amendment 7 #
2008/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas the institution of the authentic act does not exist in common-law systems, in particular the lawjurisdiction of England and Wales, or in Nordic countries; whereas although in England and Wales there exist solicitors who act as notaries public and the profession of scrivener notaries, those lawyers cannot exists, rather than produceing authentic acts, but merely those legal professionals have powers to certify that a signatures, and accordingly, in adopting any legislation on European authentic acts, action should be taken to ensure that no confusion can arise in this respect is genuine or that the copy is identical to the original; whereas having regard to the different legal systems in the European Union and to ensuring equality between the exercise of legal professions in each Member State it is important to refer to Article 46 of Regulation No 2201/2003 (Brussels II bis)1, which states that “documents which have been formally drawn up or registered as authentic instruments and are enforceable in one Member State and also agreements between the parties that are enforceable in the Member State in which they were concluded shall be recognised and declared enforceable under the same conditions as judgments”; whereas, in turn, every precaution should be taken to ensure that authentic acts cannot be used in countries where such acts cannot be made by nationals of those countries in order to circumvent procedures prescribed by the those countries' legal systems (e.g. grant of probate); whereas, in addition, in order to raise awareness among legal professionals in those Member States where authentic acts do not exist, a suitable information campaign should be initiated by the Commission and every effort should be made to ensure that common-lawto facilitate an information exchange between the different legal professionals are aware of the work done by civil-law notaries and of the potential advantages for their clients – in terms of, in particular, legal certainty – of using authentic acts in transactions which they are proposing to conclude in those countries where that instrument is usedimed at encouraging an understanding of the types of legal instruments that exist in addition to a formal court judgment; whereas this underscores a need often expressed by Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs for trans-European networks of legal practitioners, information campaigns and material and common training, which the Commission is called upon to promote, 1 Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (OJ L 338, 23.12.2003, p. 1).Or. en
Amendment 9 #
2008/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that mutual trust in the field of law within the Community justifies the future abolition of procedures for checking the accuracy of authentic acts or any analogous formal legal documents which record a legal fact or act in cross- border matters; considers that this recognition of an authentic act or analogous legal document for the purpose of its use in the requested Member State can only be refused in the case of serious and substantiated doubts as to its authenticity, or if recognition is contrary to public policy in the Member State requested;
Amendment 10 #
2008/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Requests the Commission to submit to Parliament, on the basis of Article 65(a) and the second indent of Article 67(5) of the EC Treaty, a legislative proposal on establishing the mutual recognition and enforcement of authentic acts and analogous formal legal documents;
Amendment 11 #
2008/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that recognition may not result in giving a foreign act greater effect than a national act would have, but insists that the act must enjoy the legal effects intended by the applicable law under which it was drawn up;
Amendment 12 #
2008/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Asks that this Regulation apply to all authentic acts and analogous formal legal documents on civil and commercial matters except those that relate to property and should or may be subject to entry or mention in a public register;
Amendment 15 #
2008/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Suggests that careful consideration be given as to the future recognition of authentic acts and analogous legal documents in the area of property, given the growing level of personal mobility within the European Union and incidents of cross-border property and inheritance;
Amendment 16 #
2008/2124(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Specifies that this Regulation should not apply either to either to matters relating to the law applicable to the subject of the authentic act or analogous formal legal document or to questions relating to the competence, organisation and structure of public authorities and officials, including the authentication procedure;
Amendment 8 #
2008/2123(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)
Recital K a (new)
Ka. whereas mechanisms could be introduced for the easy recognition, registration and use of lasting powers of attorney throughout the European Union,
Amendment 11 #
2008/2123(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Requests the Commission to submit to Parliament, on the basis of Article 65 of the EC Treaty, a legislative proposal on strengthening cooperation between Member States and improving the recognition and enforcement of decisions on the protection of adults and, incapacity mandates and lasting powers of attorney, following the detailed recommendations below;
Amendment 3 #
2008/2063(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Resolves to ensure that, under the procedures for implementation of the "citizens' initiative", citizens have a right to present their proposals in the first instance to the European Parliament, through its Petitions Committee, given that this new opportunity can clearly be equated with and related to the right of petition itself, and that it makes good sense for EU citizens to make full use of the democratically elected institution when inviting the Commission to act2; considers, furthermore, that such a procedure would ensure greater openness and transparency allowing the active involvement of EUConsiders that the Committee on Petitions should be closely involved in citizens' initiatives and could act as a platform for promoting individual initiatives and the initiative right itself, whilst recognising that the Commission is the sole addressee of citizens' in the work of the institutions; 1 Article 21 TFEU – Ordinary legislative procedure (QMV) for procedures concerning the introduction of a "citizens' initiative". Article 22 TFEU – special legislative procedure for provisions to strengthen rights of citizens: Council acting unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament and the approval of the Member States. 2 Article 21 TFEU – Ordinary legislative procedure (QMV) for procedures concerning the introduction of a "citizens' initiative". Article 22 TFEU – special legislative procedure for provisions to strengthen rights of citizens: Council acting unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament and the approval of the Member States.itiatives; considers that mechanisms should be provided for in the implementing regulation enabling Parliament to adopt a position on, and if appropriate champion, such initiatives; Or. en
Amendment 14 #
2008/2046(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9a (new)
Paragraph 9a (new)
9a. Suggests that the Commission should continue to give consideration to the feasibility of using its Representations in Member States to observe and monitor implementation on the ground;
Amendment 15 #
2008/2046(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9b (new)
Paragraph 9b (new)
9b. Emphasises the need to give consideration to the previously canvassed idea of a common access point for all citizens' complaints and problems relating to the monitoring of the application of Community law, given that the citizen is currently faced with a plethora of options (petitions, complaints, the Ombudsman, SOLVIT, etc.) and therefore some form of central signposting system could provide more targeted and timely results;
Amendment 39 #
2008/0224(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) For these reasons and with a view to ensuring transparency and legal certainty through common rules, it is appropriate to provide for suchaccredited parliamentary assistants, with the exception of assistants working for Members in the Member State in which they were elected, to be employed by way of direct contracts with the European Parliament. In contradistinction, local assistants are employed, in accordance with the aforementioned Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, by Members of the European Parliament under contracts concluded under the applicable national law in the Member State in which they are elected.
Amendment 48 #
2008/0224(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 2
Article 2
Amendment 51 #
2008/0224(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Annex – point 3
Annex – point 3
Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC)
Chapter 1 – Article 126 – paragraph 1
Chapter 1 – Article 126 – paragraph 1
1. PThe parliamentary assistants shall be classified by grade. in accordance with the indication given in the exercise of their full discretion by the Member or Members whom the assistant will support in their parliamentary activities. For grades 14 - 18 accredited parliamentary assistants shall be required, as a minimum, to have completed a degree and/or have equivalent professional experience.
Amendment 54 #
2008/0224(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Annex – point 3
Annex – point 3
Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC)
Chapter 1 – Article 126 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Chapter 1 – Article 126 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. By way of derogation from Article 7, accredited parliamentary assistants shall be entitled to vote in and stand for elections to a representative body, which shall be autonomous from the Staff Committee set up under Article 9 of the Staff Regulations. The provisions necessary to give effect to this entitlement shall be adopted under Article 125(2).
Amendment 55 #
2008/0224(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Annex – point 3
Annex – point 3
Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC)
Chapter 3 – Article 128 – paragraph 1
Chapter 3 – Article 128 – paragraph 1
1. Article 1d of the Staff Regulations shall apply by analogy. A difference of treatment shall be justified if it is based on the special nature of the relationship between the accredited parliamentary assistant and the Member(s) he assists, such as the holding of certain political opinions.
Amendment 63 #
2008/0224(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Annex – point 3
Annex – point 3
Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC)
Chapter 3 – Article 129 – paragraph 3
Chapter 3 – Article 129 – paragraph 3
3. Not less than one month beforeIf during or at the expirynd of the probationary period, a report on his ability to perform his duties and also on his conduct and efficiency shall be made by the Member or the Members of the European Parliament if the work of the parliamentary assistant has not proved adequate to justify retention in his function. That report shall be communicated to the person concerned, who shall have the right to submit his comments in writing within a period of eight days,concerned so request, the abovementioned parliamentary assistant shall be dismissed by the authority referred to in the first paragraph of Article 6. If necessary, the abovementionOtherwise the accredited parliamentary assistant shall be dismissed by the authority referred to in the first paragraph of Article 6, provided the report was communicated to him before the end of the probationary periodeemed able to perform his duties and his conduct and efficiency shall be deemed compliant with the requirements of service.
Amendment 67 #
2008/0224(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Annex – point 3
Annex – point 3
Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC)
Chapter 3 – Article 131 – paragraph 1
Chapter 3 – Article 131 – paragraph 1
1. The contracts of accredited parliamentary assistants shall be concluded for a fixed period. A fixed contract shall not be extended more than twice during a parliamentary term. Unless otherwise specified in the contract itself, the contract shall terminate at the end of the parliamentary term during which it was concluded. Without prejudice to Article 140, the contracts shall expire at the latest by the end of the parliamentary term during which they were concluded.
Amendment 73 #
2008/0224(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Annex – point 3
Annex – point 3
Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC)
Chapter 3 – Article 131 – paragraph 2
Chapter 3 – Article 131 – paragraph 2
2. The European Parliament shall adopt an internal decision defining the criteria applicable toprovisions adopted under Article 125(3) shall set out guidelines for classification on engagement.
Amendment 83 #
2008/0224(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Annex – point 3
Annex – point 3
Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC)
Chapter 4 – Article 132 – paragraph 4
Chapter 4 – Article 132 – paragraph 4
4. Articles 42a, 42b, 55a and 57 to 61 of the Staff Regulations (leave, hours of work and public holidays) and Articles 16(2) to (4) and Article 18 of the present Conditions of employment shall apply by analogy taking into account the particular nature of the tasks and responsibilities assumed by accredited parliamentary assistants. Special leave, parental leave and family leave shall not extend beyond the term of the contract.
Amendment 88 #
2008/0224(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Annex – point 3
Annex – point 3
Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC)
Chapter 5 – Article 134 – table
Chapter 5 – Article 134 – table
Grade 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 5 7 6 Full-time basic salary 1 193,00 1 389,85 1 619,17 1 .886,33 2 197,58.045,18 2.217,41 2 560.404,184 2 982,61 2.606,59 2.826,09 Grade 8 9 7 108 11 9 120 113 142 Full-time basic salary 3 474,74 4 048 3.064,078 4 716,00 5 494,14 6 400,67 7 456,783.322,11 3.601,87 3.905,18 4.234,04 4.590,59 Grade 13 14 15 16 17 18 Full-time basic salary 4.977,17 5.396,30 5.850,73 8 687,15 .343,42 6.877,61 7.456,78
Amendment 93 #
2008/0224(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Annex – point 3
Annex – point 3
Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC)
Chapter 6 – Article 136
Chapter 6 – Article 136
Save as otherwise provided in Article 137, Articles 95 to 111 and 113 to 115 (social security) shall apply by analogy.
Amendment 94 #
2008/0224(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Annex – point 3
Annex – point 3
Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC)
Chapter 6 – Article 136 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Chapter 6 – Article 136 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Article 96(11) shall apply subject to the proviso that in the event that the Commission concludes that an adjustment of the contribution is necessary owing to the inclusion of accredited assistants in the unemployment insurance scheme, the necessary payments shall be financed under an appropriate budget heading and paid from the total appropriations allocated to the section of the budget relating to the European Parliament.
Amendment 97 #
2008/0224(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Annex – point 3
Annex – point 3
Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC)
Chapter 6 – Article 137 – paragraph 4
Chapter 6 – Article 137 – paragraph 4
Amendment 101 #
2008/0224(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Annex – point 3
Annex – point 3
Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC)
Chapter 9 – Article 140 – paragraph 1 – point d
Chapter 9 – Article 140 – paragraph 1 – point d
Amendment 102 #
2008/0224(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Annex – point 3
Annex – point 3
Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC)
Chapter 9 – Article 140 – paragraph 2
Chapter 9 – Article 140 – paragraph 2
2. Where the contract ceases pursuant to paragraph 1(c) or the European Parliament terminates the contract pursuant to paragraph 1(d), the parliamentary assistant shall be entitled to compensation equal to one third of his basic salary for the period between the date when his duties end and the date when his contract expires, subject however to a maximum of three months’ basic salary.
Amendment 102 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) Full harmonisation of some key regulatory aspects will considerably increase legal certainty for both consumers and business. Both consumers and business will be able to rely on a single regulatory framework based on clearly defined legal concepts regulating certainthe harmonisation of certain specific aspects of business-to- consumer contracts across the CommunityUnion. The effect will be to eliminate theimportant barriers stemming from the fragmentation of the rules and to completadvance the internal market in this area. These barriers can only be eliminated by establishing uniform rules at CommunityUnion level. Furthermore consumers will enjoy a higher common level of protection across the CommunityUnion.
Amendment 113 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17 a (new)
Recital 17 a (new)
(17a) In order to guarantee a high level of consumer protection in relation to information requirements for distance and off-premises contracts, Member States should be able introduce stricter requirements than those set out by this Directive for cases where there is a demonstrable risk to consumers' heath and safety.
Amendment 129 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 a (new)
Recital 38 a (new)
(38a) A single, common concept of conformity which provides a high level of consumer protection will provide businesses and consumers with greater legal certainty and reduce barriers to trade. The issues of liability and consequent remedies should, however, remain a matter for the national law of individual Member States.
Amendment 173 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4
Article 4
1. Except where provided for in paragraph 2, Member States may adopt or maintain in force more stringent provisions, in the field covered by this Directive, in order to ensure a higher level of consumer protection. Member States shall ensure that such provisions are compatible with the Treaties. 2. Member States may not maintain or introduce, in their national law, provisions diverging from those laid down in this DirectiveArticles 9(1) to (1a), 12 to 17, 24 (1) to 24 (2), including more or less stringent provisions to ensure a different level of consumer protection.
Amendment 201 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. Without prejudice to Articles 7(2), 13 and 42, the consequences of any breach of Article 5, shall be determined in accordance with the applicable national law, save those breaches of a de minimis, technical nature where the effects of the breach under the applicable national law would be disproportionate to the harm actually incurred. Member States shall provide in their national laws for effective contract law remedies for any breach of Article 5.
Amendment 206 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Member States shall not impose any formal requirements other than those provided for in paragraphs 1 to 1(a) unless the goods may present a particular risk to the health and safety of the consumer or a third person.
Amendment 228 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. In the case of an off-premises contract, the withdrawal period shall begin from the day when the consumer signs the order form or in cases where the order form is not on paper, when the consumer receives a copy of the order form on another durable medium. In the case of a distancThe withdrawal period ends fourteen days after the latest of the following times; (a) the time of conclusion of the contract; (b )the time when the consumer receives from the business adequate information on the right to withdraw; or (c) if the subject matter of the contract foris the saledelivery of goods, the withdrawal period shall begin from the day on which the consumer or a third party other than the carrier and indicated by the consumer acquires the material possession of each of the goods ordered. In the case of a distance contract for the provision of services, the withdrawal period shall begin from the day of the conclusion of the contract. time when the goods are received; (d) in the case of an off-premises contract for the provision of services, the time when the consumer receives a copy of the signed contract document on a durable medium; (e) if the subject matter of the contract is both the delivery of goods and the provision of services, the time when the latest event takes place.
Amendment 302 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 1
Article 24 – paragraph 1
1. The traderbusiness shall deliver the goods in conformity with the saleswhich are of the quantity, quality and description required by the contract and which are contained or packaged in the manner required by the contract.
Amendment 303 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 24 – paragraph 2
Article 24 – paragraph 2
2. Delivered goodExcept where the parties shall be presumed to be inve agreed otherwise, the goods do not conformity with the contract if they satisfy the following conditions: (a) they comply with the description given by the trader and unless they: (a) are fit for the purpossess the qualities of the goods which the trader has presented to the consumer as a sample or model for which goods of the same description would ordinarily be used; (b) they are fit for any particular purpose for which the consumer requires them and which heexpressly or impliedly made known to the tradseller at the time of the conclusion of the contract and which the trader has accepted; (c) they are fit for the purposes, except where the circumstances show that the buyer did not rely, or that it was unreasonable for which goodsm to rely, ofn the same type are normally used oreller's skill and judgement; (dc) they showpossess the quality and performance which are normal in goods of the same type and which the consumer can reasonably expect, given the nature of the goods and taking into acies of goods which the seller has held out to the buyer as a sample or model; (d) are count any public statements on the specific characteristics of the goods made about them by the trader, the producer or his representative, particularly in advertising or on labellingained or packaged in the manner usual for such goods or, where there is no such manner, in a manner adequate to preserve and protect the goods.
Amendment 379 #
2008/0196(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 31 – paragraph 4
Article 31 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall refrain from imposing any presentational requirements as to the way the contract terms in a distance or off-premises contract are expressed or made available to the consumer., unless: (a) the goods may present a particular risk to the health and safety of the consumer or a third person; (b) Member States have demonstrated, with the support of an investigation or a study, that there is considerable consumer detriment, or a failure of competition, in that specific sector;
Amendment 70 #
2008/0160(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13 a (new)
Recital 13 a (new)
Amendment 87 #
2008/0160(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point 3 a (new)
Article 2 – point 3 a (new)
3a. ‘Inuit’ means a native inhabitant of Canada, Greenland, the Russian Federation or the United States of America who is a member of one of the following ethnological groupings: – Inuit; – Inupiat; – Inuvialit; – Kalaalit; – Yupik;
Amendment 60 #
2008/0130(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8 a (new)
Recital 8 a (new)
(8a) In line with the Council and Commission commitments to the concept of “e-justice”, all forms pertinent to the formation and registration of an SPE should be available online and it should be possible to effect registration online, as well as to effect the notification or registration of any required formalities or filings or other registrations during the life of the SPE.
Amendment 9 #
2007/2258(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Amendment 8 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas concern for the Baltic marine environment is one of the principal taskobjectives of the Union’s Northern Dimension, as repeatedly confirmed by Commission communications and Parliament resolutions,
Amendment 25 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas, moreover, the munitions containers are in a critical condition, their corrosion having been estimated at 80%, and their exact location cannot always be determined,
Amendment 27 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
Amendment 36 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
Amendment 40 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
Amendment 48 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital X
Recital X
Amendment 65 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Recalls that the International Energy Agency, the European Commission and numerous independent studies predict that demand for gas imports to Europe will rise significantly over the coming years as domestic supplies decrease, and that it is therefore necessary to meet rising demand and to replace less environmentally friendly fossil fuels;
Amendment 66 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Underlines that energy security must be regarded as an essential component of the overall security of the European Union, whereby the definition of energy security should not merely be limited to the lack of internal EU production but should also take into account the geopolitical aspects of dependency on imports and the potential therein for politically motivated interruptions; believes that the Third Energy Package will reduce each Member State's energy dependence as no state can be disconnected from a third-country supplier in a fully liberalised and integrated energy market;
Amendment 67 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Regrets the marginal role played by the EU in this project, in particular that of the Commission; points out that greater EU involvement would reduce the uncertainty felt by many Member States about the Nord Stream project;
Amendment 70 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 75 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 90 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 94 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 100 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 104 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 109 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 113 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 117 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. EmphasisesCalls on the developer to ensure that the construction and operation of the Gas Ppipeline on the Baltic seabed will threatendoes not endanger the many species of fish and birds as well as the existence of a population of porpoises numbering only 600, which are a species unique to this geographical region;
Amendment 124 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Finds that in addition to declaringConsiders that the protection of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea to be a keyis a component of the Northern Dimension of the EU, Community institutions must take specific action with respect to this largest-ever Baltic Sea project;
Amendment 134 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Emphasises that alternative gas pipeline routes, which do not disturb the marine environment, should be analysed first, and notes that it is possible to run suchalternative routes to the Russian border overland, solely through European Union Member States;
Amendment 139 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 142 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Notes that the Langeled offshore pipeline, recently opened between Norway and the UK, is currently the world's longest offshore export pipeline, being of roughly the same length as the proposed Nord Stream, and that it was brought into service with the minimum of impact on the marine environment and commercial operations, such as fishing and shipping, in the North Sea;
Amendment 146 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. SupportNotes the Swedish Government’s Decisionrequest of 12 February 2008 refusing to grant Nord Stream AG permission to build the gas pipeline due to significant procedural and substantive shortcomings and in particular the lack of an analysis of an alternative route and of the option of abandoning the construction of the pipelineto Nord Stream AG for further information about the project;
Amendment 155 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
Amendment 157 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Observes that Nord Stream is in the process of producing a comprehensive environmental impact assessment (EIA) which will be submitted to the national authorities in Russia, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany – the “countries of origin” as set out in the Espoo Convention – in order for an evaluation to be carried out by each of those countries of the full data and studies produced;
Amendment 158 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)
Paragraph 16 b (new)
16b. Calls for a truly independent environmental impact assessment to be commissioned, with the approval of all littoral states, while recognising the environmental impact assessment carried out by Rambøll;
Amendment 161 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 165 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 170 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
Amendment 177 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
Amendment 182 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Commission in particular to ensure compliance with the provisions of the documents referred to above, the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the HELCOM Convention, the Espoo Convention, the Aarhus Convention, Directives 85/337/EEC, 97/11/EC, 92/43/EEC and 79/409/EEC, as well as Article 10 of the EC Treaty and the precautionary principle and the principle of sustainable development, and to initiate proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty in the event of failure to comply with the above obligations;
Amendment 185 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
Amendment 187 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
23a. Suggests the establishment of a system of common supervision of the pipeline, to include all countries in the Baltic Sea region; further suggests that the obligation to pay compensation for environmental damage should lie solely with Nord Stream AG;
Amendment 188 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 b (new)
Paragraph 22 b (new)
23b. Calls on the Commission to investigate the possibility, within the Northern Dimension Partnership, of requiring the equivalent of 'planning gain' from Nord Stream in connection with possible regeneration projects in the Finno-Russian border area where the pipeline is proposed to commence or within the context of the Baltic Sea Strategy, likewise within the Northern Dimension Partnership;
Amendment 189 #
2007/2118(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 c (new)
Paragraph 22 c (new)
23c. Notes the lack of institutional structures capable of responding adequately to the environmental and geopolitical security issues associated with this project; suggests, therefore, that the Commissioner on Energy, in cooperation with the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, should be given wide-ranging powers to act on issues concerning geopolitical security;
Amendment 21 #
2007/2027(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Regrets that, under Article 10 of the Protocol on transitional provisions annexed to the Treaty of Lisbon, the powers of the Court of Justice with respect to acts in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters adopted before the entry into force of that Treaty are to remain the same as they are under the present EU Treaty for a transitional period of five years; welcomes, however, the declaration made by the Intergovernmental Conference concerning that article of the Protocol and accordingly urges the Council and the Commission to join with Parliament in re-adopting those acts in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters which were adopted before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty;
Amendment 42 #
2007/0113(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Annex I – point (c)
Annex I – point (c)
(c) where the contract concerns a specific immovable property, an accurate description of that property and its location, together with, where appropriate, details and copies of any land registry, public register, cadastre or equivalent entry relating to the property; where the contract concerns a number of properties (multi-resorts), an appropriate description of the properties and their location; where the contract concerns accommodation other than immovable property, an appropriate description of the accommodation and the facilities;
Amendment 106 #
2007/0113(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) It is necessary to ensure that persons or organisations (which might include a national or European licensing authority covering those products within the scope of this Directive) having, under national law or EU law, a legitimate interest in the matter have legal remedies for initiating proceedings against infringements of this Directive.
Amendment 40 #
2007/0022(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point a
Article 2 – point a
(a) “unlawful” means infringing Community legislation or a law, an administrative regulation or a decision taken by a competent authority in a Member State aiming at the protection of the environment and public health.
Amendment 43 #
2007/0022(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point a a (new)
Article 2 – point a a (new)
(aa) “protected wild fauna and flora species” means (i) for the offence relating to possession/taking/killing/destruction, those listed in: – Annex IV to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora1; – Annex 1 to, and referred to in Article 4(2) of, Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds2 and (ii) for the trade-related offence, those listed in: – Annexes A or B to Council Regulation 338/97/EC of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein3; ________________________________ 1 OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. Directive as last amended by Directive 2006/105/EC (OJ L 363, 20.12.2006, p. 368. 2 OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Directive 2006/105/EC. 3 OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1332/2005 (OJ L 215, 19.8.2005, p. 1).
Amendment 44 #
2007/0022(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – point a b (new)
Article 2 – point a b (new)
(ab) “habitat within a protected site”, means any habitat of species for which an area is classified as a special protection area pursuant to Article 4(1) or (2) of Directive 79/409/EEC, or any natural habitat or a habitat of species for which a site is designated as a special area of conservation pursuant to Article 4(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC.
Amendment 58 #
2007/0022(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – point g
Article 3 – point g
(g) the unlawful possession, taking, damaging, processing, killing or trading of or in specimens of protected wild fauna and flora species or parts or derivatives thereof;
Amendment 60 #
2007/0022(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – point h
Article 3 – point h
(h) the unlawful significant deterioration of a protected habitat within a protected site;
Amendment 64 #
2007/0022(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – point i
Article 3 – point i
(i) the unlawful trade in, or the manufacture, placing on the market, distribution or use of ozone -depleting substances;
Amendment 234 #
2006/0136(COD)
Article 4 – paragraph 7
7. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, where on the basis of documented evidence an active substance is necessary to control a serious danger to plant health which cannot be contained by other available means, such active substance may be approved for a time limited period not exceeding five years even if it does not satisfy the criteria set out in points 3.6.3, 3.6.4, 3.6.5 , 3.7.1 or 3.8.2 of Annex II, provided that the use of the active substance is subject to risk mitigation measures to ensure that exposure of humans and the environment is minimised. For such substances maximum residue levels shall be set in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. This derogation shall not apply to active substances which are or have to be classified in accordance with Directive 67/548/EEC, as carcinogenic category 1 or toxic for reproduction category 1. Member States should submit applications with supporting evidence to the Commission for approval.