15 Amendments of Robert ROCHEFORT related to 2011/2117(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Recital A (new)
Recital A (new)
A. whereas alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is a mechanism for reaching out- of-court settlements by helping consumers and traders to resolve conflicts through the intervention of a third party (mediator or arbitrator),
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Recital B (new)
Recital B (new)
B. having regard to its resolution of 6 April 2011 on ‘Governance and Partnership in the Single Market’1, in which it called on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal on the use of alternative dispute resolution in the EU by the end of 2011, _______ 1 P7_TA-PROV(2011)0144.
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Recital C (new)
Recital C (new)
C. whereas the development of legislation on ADR is one of the twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence in the context of the Single Market Act, as set out in the communication adopted by the Commission on 13 April 2011,
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Recital D (new)
Recital D (new)
D. whereas the legislative proposal on ADR in the EU is mentioned in the Commission’s work programme as a strategic initiative,
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Supports the Commission’s intention to encourage the use of alternative means of dispute resolution that are swift, effective and cheap and apt to enable the establishment of quality commercial relations and contribute to a high level of consumer protection;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
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 two being complementary; points out, in this connection, that facilitating the use of ADR in the EU must on no account serve as a pretext for avoiding or delaying the introduction of a system of collective recourse at the European level;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points to the importance of rectifying any existing shortcomings with regard to the geographical coverage of ADR in Europeout that, although there are numerous ADR systems operating effectively in Europe at present, there are still many shortcomings in terms of both geographical and sector-by-sector coverage; urges that existing shortcomings with regard to the geographical coverage of ADR in Europe be rectified rapidly, and calls for an effective out-of-court dispute settlement system for consumer matters which is operational across the EU; 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; encourages the Member States to consider introducing single points of contact for each sector, to provide information and initiate procedures;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – introductory part
Paragraph 6 – introductory part
6. Proposes that a single European charter be drawn up containing the guidelines to be followed in relation toCalls on the Commission to incorporate in its legislative proposal, which could take the form of a framework directive, the following guidelines that will have to be followed by the ADR systems established in Europe, these being the following:
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Encourages those Member States that wish to do so to go further than the guidelines introduced as part of the future European legislative framework; proposes, therefore, that a European charter on ADR – drawing on the best practices implemented in the Member States – be drafted as an additional instrument; recommends, to this end, setting up an annual mediation forum as a means of pooling experience;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Calls on the Commission to support and strengthen, and enhance the capabilities of, existing bodies operating in this area which have demonstrated their effectiveness and value, such as SOLVIT, Europe Direct, ECC-NET and FIN-NET;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Paragraph 8 c (new)
8c. Points out the importance of better publicising the existence of ADR mechanisms and doing more to encourage consumers and professionals to use them as an alternative to court proceedings, which makes it possible to avoid a confrontational approach and offers the prospect of a win-win situation;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 d (new)
Paragraph 8 d (new)
8d. Takes the view that the provision of information to consumers is a responsibility shared by public authorities, information and advisory networks, regulators and consumer groups, and recommends that they each, at their respective level, conduct awareness- raising campaigns and pilot projects on the subject;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 e (new)
Paragraph 8 e (new)
8e. Takes the view that the provision of information to consumers is a responsibility shared by public authorities and representative organisations, and recommends that they each, at their respective level, conduct awareness- raising campaigns and pilot projects on the subject;
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
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, so that consumers can rapidly identify businesses that have opted into ADR systems.