7 Amendments of Philippe LAMBERTS related to 2011/2089(INI)
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Welcomes the Commission's work towards a coherent European approach to collective redress and calls in this context on the Commission to come forward with sector specific initiatives as in the fields of competition, consumer protection and the environment, where a specific need has been identified, as well as with a framework including minimum standards for an EU - consistent system;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Recalls that, even though consumers and competition rights exist across the EU, consumers and businesses are very often unable to enforce their rights due to the inadequacy of existing means of redress in mass claim situations. Notes also that, as a consequence of EU market integration, a majority of mass detriment situations have a cross-border component, highlighting the need for EU-consistent redress mechanisms based on the same features and whereby cross-border cases can be addressed effectively;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Points out, that experience so far from those EU Member States where such redress mechanisms are already in place, shows that there has been no abuse or liquidation of businesses;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Deems that following the positive experience in Member States where it exists, the Commission should consider establishing a two-stage test-case procedure as a cost-effective CR system: - First stage: a declaration on the responsibility of the enterprise on the basis of exemplary cases submitted by the authorized bodies and after admissibility has been verified; - Second stage: after publicity and constitution of a group of plaintiffs, a decision on the compensation, either on the basis of a settlement agreement approved by the court or a decision of the court;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Believes that the unsuccessful party should bear the litigation costs according to the loser pays principle, however, the court shall not recognise costs of the successful party to the extent that they were unnecessarily incurred or are disproportionate to the claim;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Believes in that respect that Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms are useful tools that should be promoted, however they can only be effective if there is possibility of court action in case of failure; calls on the Member States to inform consumers of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism as a possible quick and low- cost option but to provide the means of effective access to justice in case of failure of ADR;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Notes that participation could be subject to an ‘opt-in’ or ‘opt-out’ system by the affected parties, according to evaluation of existing best-practices;