17 Amendments of Sylvana RAPTI related to 2011/2089(INI)
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas, according to the Flash Eurobarometer on 'Consumer attitudes towards cross-border trade and consumer protection' of March 2011, 79 % of European consumers state that they would be more willing to defend their rights in court if they could join a collective action,
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
E a. Whereas sixteen Member States have so far introduced collective redress mechanisms in their legal system, with wide differences in terms of scope, procedural characteristics (legal standing, categories of victims, type of procedure (opt-in/opt-out), financing or role played by alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in parallel to judicial redress) and effectiveness, creating a true legal patchwork at EU level,
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Notes that, according to a study carried out for DG SANCO by Civil Consulting in 2008 ('Evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of collective redress mechanisms in the EU'), none of the existing collective redress mechanisms within the EU have generated disproportionate economic consequences on the businesses concerned;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls therefore on the Commission to submit a legislative initiativeproposals establishing a set of common principles for a collective redress mechanism applicable to both national and cross-border cases, while taking due account ofEU-wide coherent collective redress mechanisms in the fields of consumer protection and competition, applicable to both national and cross-border cases, on the basis of a set of common principles inspired by the EU legal tradition and the legal orders of the 27 Member States;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Considers that the Commission's current work on collective redress could be also extended to other areas such as breaches of data protection, financial services, environmental damage, breaches of employment rights or cases of discrimination;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Emphasises that early settlement of disputes should be encouraged where possible, and court litigation should be viewed as the last resort; stresses that mechanisms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) may provide parties with a faster and cheaper solution and play a complementary role to judicial redress; notes, however, that there are currently significant – sector-specific and geographical − gaps in the existing ADR systems in the EU;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Notes that ADR mechanisms often depend on the trader's willingness to cooperate, while most ADR bodies do not have the capacity to provide proceedings for mass claims; stresses that, as affirmed in its resolution of 20 May 2010 on delivering a single market to consumers and citizens, the availability of an effective judicial redress system would act as a strong incentive for parties to agree out-of-court, which is likely to solve a considerable number of cases thereby avoiding litigation;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 d (new)
Paragraph 9 d (new)
9 d. Recognises the need to avoid certain abuses or fraudulent use of collective redress mechanisms which have occurred in non-European countries, in particular the US with its "class actions" system; stresses, however, that such fears of abusive or excessive litigation are not supported by the evidence from those EU Member States where judicial collective redress mechanisms are already in place;
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12 a. Stresses that, in order to ensure the efficiency of the system and to avoid potential abuses, the EU approach to collective redress should only include representative action by entities duly recognised at national level (public authorities, such as the Ombudsmen or consumer organisations); calls on the Commission to define a common set of criteria that consumer organisations must fulfil in order to be able to stand in court to avoid forum-shopping; stresses that national competent authorities should be responsible for checking that consumer organisations comply with such criteria;
Amendment 85 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13 a. Recognises that an important element in a collective redress system is the choice between an opt-in or opt-out procedure; is aware that consumer organisations consider opt-in systems to be burdensome and cost-intensive due to the entailed preparatory work such as identifying consumers, establishing the facts of each case, as well as running the case and communicating with each plaintiff, while they may also pose difficulties in obtaining a sufficiently high number of consumers opting-in due to uncertainty about the effectiveness of the procedure or lack of information;
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13 b. Points out that in an opt-in procedure those difficulties could be solved by the court allowing consumers to join a collective action after the judgement in a test case has been delivered and by giving the judgement effect for all victims;
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 c (new)
Paragraph 13 c (new)
13 c. Emphasises also that opt-out solutions can mitigate many of those difficulties, although they are viewed negatively by some stakeholders due to the perceived risk of encouraging the excessive litigation experienced in some non-European jurisdictions; notes that in those Member States where opt-out systems are in place, collective actions have proved to be more effective and allow a higher participation of consumers without resulting in excessive litigation; calls on the Commission to ensure that the introduction of such mechanism would prohibit the non-voluntary participation of victims in the collective action, and would be without prejudice to the individual right of access to justice;
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 d (new)
Paragraph 13 d (new)
Amendment 97 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15 a. Recognises the importance of the "loser pays" principle as a means to prevent possible abuses in an EU-wide collective redress mechanism; stresses that the necessary safeguards to prohibit unmeritorious claims, such as the representation of the claimants through legitimated entities acting in the public interest, or the principle of proportionality with regard to the compensation of the victims, are guarantees that could justify an adequate adjustment of this principle by means of allowing the judge to reduce at his discretion the court fees paid by the losing party;
Amendment 99 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Emphasises that the provision of information about collective actions plays a major role in the accessibility and the effectiveness of the procedure as consumers need to be aware that they have been the victims of the same illegal practice and that there is a collective action launched, including in another Member State; calls on Member States to put in place efficient mechanisms ensuring that a maximum of victims are informed and made aware of their rights and obligations, in particular when those are domiciled in several Member States;
Amendment 103 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Suggests that, in order to facilitate cooperation between the entities qualified to take collective actions, especially in cross-border cases, an EU-wide on-line register of launched and ongoing cases should be established; stresses that such a single European window would serve as a useful instrument to qualified entities planning to seek judicial collective redress for identifying if a similar action is being launched in another Member State; stresses the importance of exchanging best practices and applying the best available technologies to facilitate exchange of information, filing and grouping of cases;
Amendment 111 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Calls on the Commission to thoroughly consider the possibility of creating a European fund financed by a share of the fines imposed to sanction companies infringing EU competition law; proposes that such fund could be used to cover the costs of cross-border collective actions having a European dimension, provided that the representative entity proves that the funds will be used for that purpose; calls on the Member States to consider instituting similar funds at national level using revenues from the fines imposed by their public authorities; stresses that such an option would provide additional resources to fight against fraudulent behaviour, but it would be also a fair way to finance consumer collective redress since part of the fines would indirectly be returned to the victims;