BETA

Activities of Evelyn REGNER related to 2011/2013(INI)

Legal basis opinions (0)

Amendments (11)

Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
1 Eurobarometer 224, 2008, p. 4.Fa. whereas the divergence of contract law at national level does not constitute the only obstacle for SMEs and consumers in respect of cross border activities since they face other problems including language barriers, different taxation systems, the question of the reliability of online traders, digital literacy, security problems etc.; Or. en
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F b (new)
Fb. whereas it is of paramount importance that any initiative from the EU will have to answer real needs and concerns of both businesses and consumers; whereas these concerns also extend to legal/linguistic problems (provisions of standard terms and conditions for small businesses in all EU languages) and the difficulties in enforcing contracts across borders (provisions of autonomous EU measures in the field of procedural law);
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Looks forward to the publication of the Expert Group's results in order to clarify the scope and the congoing discussiontent of the OI and in order to engage in an open and transparent discussion with all stakeholders as to how these results should be used and as the Commission would consider additional options, less intrusive than the OI, for facilitating cross-border activities; calls for the creation of "European standard contracts models", translated in all EU languages, linked to an ADR system, carried out on line, which would have the advantages of being a cost-effective and simpler solution for both contractual parties and the Commission;
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Looks forward to the publication of the Expert Group’s results and the ongoing discussion as to how these should be used; considers it necessary to discuss in detail the use of the results and the scope and specific substance of a possible contract law instrument;
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Feavours the option ofat setting up an optional instrument (OI) by means of a regulation; believes that such an OI could be complemented by a ‘toolbox’ that should be endorsed by means of an interinstitutional agreement will not bring the expected benefits to all market players;
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Welcomes the fact that the chosen option takes appropriate account of the subsidiarity principle and is without prejudice to the legislative powers of the Member States in the area of contract and civil law;
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Regards the optional instrument for consumers as problematic, since, in particular, it places the burden of deciding on the best choice of law on consumers, as the weaker commercial partner, a decision which, in the absence of precise knowledge of the actual options available to choose between, they are not equal to making; considers that introducing an optional European Contract Law instrument –whilst, at the same time, excluding the application of the Rome I Regulation – would, furthermore, disadvantage consumers by depriving them of the protection offered by possibly more favourable mandatory national provisions;
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stands, in particular, by the Rome I Regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations, with its favourability principle, which provides proven, reliable protection for consumers in connection with cross-border contracts, that may not be undermined;
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Is concerned about the confusion the additional set of rules would create for SMEs, but, in particular, for consumers, bearing in mind that in order to enforce their rights consumers have to be aware of them;
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Notes that, in connection with the goal of a European Contract Law, the importance of a functioning European jurisdiction in civil matters must not be overlooked;
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Emphasises the vital importance of involving stakeholders from throughout the Union and from different sectors of activity, including legal practitioners and recalls the Commission to undertake a wide and transparent consultation with all the stakeholders before it takes a decision based on the results of the Expert Group;
2011/03/04
Committee: JURI