BETA

14 Amendments of Rolandas PAKSAS related to 2011/2089(INI)

Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission’s work towards a coherent European approach to collective redress (CR); calls on the Commission to pay particular attention to consumer and SME protection, where the possibility of collective defence produces considerable gains in terms of cost and efficiency;
2011/07/18
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
C. whereas 79% of European consumers state that they would be more willing to defend their rights in court if they could join a collective action, as the possibility to bring together the defence leads to considerable benefits in terms of costs and effectiveness,
2011/07/25
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Emphasises the need to combine effective CR with a strong system of guaranteeding legal certainty and, safeguards against abusive litigation, implementation of the efficiency principle, and a direct impact on the functioning of the internal market and the protection of the interests of consumers and business managers; calls on the Commission to build on Member States’ experience of CR when choosing safeguards, paying special attention to the principles of proportionality and efficiency; believes these safeguards should include:
2011/07/18
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – indent 3
– plaintiffs should guarantee reimbursement of any liability for legal costs (loser pays principle) and special rules should be introduced enabling the financial risk to plaintiffs to be reduced,
2011/07/18
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Notes that legal costs are frequently a deterrent, with the result that consumer protection organisations ought to set up a fund to support collective redress, so that collective actions may be brought in order to obtain reparation or compensation and interest;
2011/07/18
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Underlines that there is current situation is not only detrimental for consumers who are the weaker party in market transactions but also imposes unequal market conditions on those businesses who abide by the rules due to unfair competitily no effective legal system governing the payment of compensation for damage caused by violations of competition law to individuals in cases of redress; notes that the competition authorities punish breaches of competition law, but that victims are only able to be compensated on an individual basis by national courts in accordance with national procedural rules, as a result of which, in general, consumers directly affected by a violation of competition law do not receive compensation, whilst fines are paid to the State, which means that justice is not being done;
2011/07/25
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Calls for greater attention to be devoted to alternative dispute resolution and self-regulatory instruments such as codes of conduct, and takes the view that collective redress should be the last resort, to be employed if consumers have no realistic prospect of defending their rights by means of an individual claim;
2011/10/04
Committee: ECON
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that any binding measures in a legislative proposal should apply mainly to the minimum standards, giving the Member States, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, the right to decide further measures; asks, however, for the Commission also to issue voluntary guidelines for the Member States, together with specifications and recommendations, and to monitor their implementation and take any measures which prove necessary;
2011/07/18
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. Emphasises that this situation leads to a significant discrimination in access to justice to the detriment of the internal market as consumers and businesses, in particular SMEs, are being treated differently according to their place of residence;
2011/07/25
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. While underlining that all claims in a CR action should be treated equally before the law regardless of nationality or origin and that rulings should be compulsory and binding in nature and have recognition and enforceability across the EU, notes that any decision on compensation should be based on the national legislation of the Member State in which a case is presented, subject to any minimum standards set out in the directive;;
2011/07/18
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 5
– only the actual damage sustained may be compensated: punitive damages must be prohibited; 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 rejected;
2011/09/22
Committee: JURI
Amendment 84 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses that the efficiency of collective redress with a view to defending rights that have been violated by the same unlawful act, where claims are based on identical factual and legal circumstances, requires a representative entity (e.g. Ombudsmen, consumer or trade associations) to be able to stand for victims from other Member States, whereas a representative entity could be also allowed to represent victims in judicial or out-of- court proceedings in another Member State;
2011/07/25
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 92 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
14. Maintains that the court has a crucial role to play and considerable discretionary powers in deciding on the admissibility of the claim, the representativeness of the claimant and controlling the ways to inform consumers;
2011/07/25
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 120 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 18
18. Is conscious that some consumer organisations may be unable to pursue collective actions due to a lack of resources, and therefore an equitable mechanism for bearing the costs of proceedings would need to be introduced and special funds should be put in place to support collective action, as without appropriate funding only a very limited number of cases will be taken.
2011/07/25
Committee: IMCO