6 Amendments of Sari ESSAYAH related to 2011/2089(INI)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes, as regards the competition sector, that the most effective tool for deterrence continues to be public enforcement by the Commission and national competition authorities; is also convinced that private enforcement through collective redress could facilitate the compensation at EU level of harm caused to consumers and undertakings;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that private enforcement already exists in most Member States even though, but many do not have explicitly establishedclear specific rules on collective redress; recalls that only Member States have the competence to legislate on the rules applicable for quantifying the amount of compensation that can be awarded;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that the leniency policy is an essential tool for uncovering cartels; emphasises that any collective redress should not compromise the effectiveness of the leniency programme; underlines, therefore, that any legislative instrument applicable to collective redress must fully respect the specificities of the antitrust sectorcompetition law leniency system;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Emphasises that, if the Commission recommends any legislative instruments pertaining to collective redress, they should only be adopted under codecision;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Proposes that the prime means of compensating the losses of those who have suffered damage should be voluntary, extrajudicial dispute settlement procedures which are quick, cheap and effective;