6 Amendments of Robert ROCHEFORT related to 2011/2089(INI)
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, individual lawsuits are often notf a large group of citizens and businesses are victims of the same infringement, individual redress does not constitute an effective means tof stopping the unlawful practices in question or tof obtaining compensation, as consumers are reluctant to initiate private lawsuit for the damage caused by such practices, in particular if the individual loss is small in comparison to the costs,
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that a momentum for harmonisation onat European level also arises since certain Member States are currently considering possibilities of introducing substantial reforms concerning their collective redress schemes and others are currently considering introducing such schemes;
Amendment 91 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Maintains that the court has a crucial role to play in deciding on the admissibility of the claim, and the representativeness of the claimant and controlling the ways to inform consumer, in order to ensure that only well-founded complaints are examined and guarantee a proper balance between preventing abusive action and protecting the right to effective access to justice both for EU citizens and businesses;
Amendment 102 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Emphasises that information about collective actions plays a major role in 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; calls on Member States to put in place efficient mechanisms ensuring that a maximum of victims are informed, in particular when those are domiciled in several Member States, whilst avoiding unduly harming the reputation of the party concerned, in order to scrupulously respect the principle of the presumption of innocence;
Amendment 109 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Affirms that, in order to make collective actions practically possible, Member States should ensure that adequate funding mechanisms are made available; stresses that public authorities should refuse to allocate resources to unmeritorious claim and designed in such a way as, on the one hand, not to encourage the bringing of actions that are not well-founded and, on the other hand, to prevent citizens and businesses, in particular SMEs, from being denied access to justice because they do not have sufficient financial resources;
Amendment 119 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 18
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 for entities meeting the conditions for the granting of authority to stand in collective redress procedures, as without appropriate funding only a very limited number of cases will be taken.