BETA

Activities of Axel VOSS related to 2013/0403(COD)

Legal basis opinions (0)

Amendments (9)

Amendment 13 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
(5) Increasing the threshold up to EUR 104,000 would be particularly beneficial for small and medium enterprises, which are currently discouraged from considering court action because under national ordinary or simplified procedures the costs of litigation are disproportionate to the value of the claim and/or the judicial proceedings are too lengthy. Raising the threshold would improve access to an effective and cost efficient judicial remedy for cross-border disputes involving Small and Medium Enterprises. Increased access to justice would enhance the trust in cross- border transactions and contribute to the fullest use of the opportunities offered by the internal market.
2014/11/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 17 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
(6) The European Small Claims Procedure applies to all claims with a cross-border element. This includes cases where the parties are both domiciled in the same Member State and only the place of performance of the contract, the place where the harmful event takes place or the place of enforcement of the judgment is situated in another Member State. In particular, where the claimant may choose under Council Regulation (EC) No 44/200115[Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council16] between the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State where both him and the defendant are domiciled and the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State where the contract is performed or the harmful event took place, the actual choice of the claimant in favour of the courts or tribunals of the Member State of the common domicile should not have the effect of depriving him of the possibility to use the European Small Claims Procedure which would otherwise be available. Furthermore, the European Small Claims Procedure should also be available in cases lodged before courts of EU Member States by or against third country residents. __________________ 15Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1). 16Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1).deleted
2014/11/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 22 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
(12) Oral hearings as well as taking of evidence by means of hearings of witnesses, experts or parties, should be carried out by distance means of communication. This should not affect the right of a party to the proceedings to appear in court for the oral hearing. In the context of oral hearings and the taking of evidence, the Member States should use modern, distance means of communication enabling persons to be heard without the need to travel to the court or tribunal. Where the person heard is domiciled in a Member State other than the Member State where the court seised is located, oral hearings should be organised in accordance with the rules set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/200117. Where the party to be heard is domiciled in the Member State where the court or tribunal with jurisdiction is located or in a third country, an oral hearing may be held through videoconference, teleconference or other appropriate distance communication technology in accordance with national law. A party should always be entitled to appear in court at an oral hearing if that party so requestso requesting should always have the right to appear and be heard or have a witness appear and be heard before the court. The court or tribunal should use the simplest and least costly method of taking evidence. __________________ 17 Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (OJ L 174, 27.6.2001, p. 1).
2014/11/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 25 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
(13) The potential costs of litigation may play a role in the claimant's decision to consider court action. Among other costs, court fees may discourage claimants from taking court action, in particular in those Member States where court fees are disproportionate. The court fees should be proportionate to the value of the claim in order to ensure access to justice for cross- border small claims. Court fees should be set by the Member States. This Regulation does not aim at harmonising court fees; instead, it puts in place a maximum limit on court fees which would make the procedure accessible to a significant proportion of claimants, while at the same time allowing Member States wide discretion in choosing the method of calculation and the amount of court fees.
2014/11/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 31 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 1
Regulation (EC) No 861/2007
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation shall apply to civil and commercial matters, whatever the nature of the court or tribunal, where the value of a claim does not exceed EUR 104,000 at the time when the claim form is received by the court or tribunal with jurisdiction, excluding all interest, expenses and disbursements. It shall not extend, in particular, to revenue, customs or administrative matters or to the liability of the State for acts and omissions in the exercise of State authority (acta jure imperii).
2014/11/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 36 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 1
Regulation (EC) No 861/2007
Article 2 – paragraph 2
2. This Regulation shall not apply where, at the time when the claim form is received by the court or tribunal with jurisdiction, all of the following elements, where relevant, are in a single Member State: (a) the domicile or habitual residence of the parties; (b) the place of performance of the contract; (c) the place where the facts on which the claim is based arose; (d) the place of enforcement of the judgment; (e) the court or tribunal with jurisdiction.deleted
2014/11/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 44 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 2
(2) Article 3 is deleted.
2014/11/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 56 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 5
Regulation (EC) No 861/2007
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. A party shall always be entitled to appear before the court or tribunal and be heard in person or have a witness appear and be heard before the court or tribunal in person if that party so requests."
2014/11/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 66 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 8
Regulation (EC) No 861/2007
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. The documents mentioned in Article 5(2) and 7(2) shall be served by postal or by electronic means attested by an acknowledgment of receipt including the date of receipt. The technical procedure followed must be such that abuse is avoided and confidentiality guaranteed. Documents shall be served electronically only on a party who expressly accepted in advance that documents may be served electronically. Service by electronic means can be attested by an automatic confirmation of delivery.
2014/11/27
Committee: JURI