BETA

8 Amendments of Philippe JUVIN related to 2011/2117(INI)

Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
2. Supports the Commission’s intention to encourage the use of alternative means of dispute resolution that are accessible, swift, effective and cheap and apt to enable the establishment of quality and trust-based commercial relations;
2011/07/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Agrees with the Commission that appropriate access to reparation in the internal market requires both the possibility of easy recourse to ADR and the existence of an effective system for collective claims, the twoboth of them being complementary and not mutually exclusive; insists on the fact that collective redress must be considered as a last resort instrument and that the use of ADR mechanisms must be strongly encouraged to settle a dispute;
2011/07/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
5. PointsStresses that one of the main obstacles to the use of ADR mechanisms in the EU is the lack of even development of such systems throughout the EU, both in geographical and in sectoral terms; points, therefore, to the importance of rectifying any existing shortcomings with regard to the geographical coverage of ADR in Europe; deplores the major sectoral deficiencies that persist in most Member States, when sector-by-sector coverage would enable the involvement of people who understand the way in which a given sector works;
2011/07/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – introductory part
6. Proposes that the Commission’s proposal on the use of ADR should include a single European charter be drawn up containing the guidelines to be followed in relation to ADR systems established in Europe, these being the following:
2011/07/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
10. Emphasises that it is crucial to raise consumer awareness of the existence of ADR prior to the initiation of a consumer dispute; insists on the necessity to reinforce the sense of responsibility of businesses and business organisations in this regard; considers that businesses and businesses federations have a duty to inform consumers on available ADR mechanisms; proposes that this ‘upstream’ information should include a reference in all contractual documents drawn up by professionals to the possibility of recourse to ADR, along with contact details and referral procedures for the relevant ADR systems;
2011/07/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
10. Emphasises that it is crucial to raise consumer awareness of the existence and benefits of ADR prior to the initiation of a consumer dispute; proposes that this ‘upstream’ information should include a reference in all contractual documents drawn up by professionals to the possibility of recourse to ADR, along with contact details and referral procedures for the relevant ADR systems;
2011/07/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
11. PAcknowledges that one of the main obstacles to the use of ADR systems is the reluctance of businesses to engage in such mechanisms; proposes that chambers of commerce and other professional bodies be required to inform enterprises of the existence of ADR and of the potential benefits of its use, not least in terms of: pre-empting lawsuits; corporate image; and, lastly, the possibilities offered by ADR, unlike an arbitration or court ruling, for the re-establishment of trust-based commercial relations between the parties;
2011/07/20
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
12. Recommends, as a potential incentive for enterprises, that a quality label for mediation be introduced in relation to mediation in consumer disputes, which would be associated with guidelines recognising best practices; stresses that the Commission should ensure that the label is properly used and enforced.
2011/07/20
Committee: IMCO