15 Amendments of Derk Jan EPPINK related to 2011/2089(INI)
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas it is important that citizens or companies can claim compensation when they suffer individual damage or loss as a result of unlawful business practices,
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas economic analysis of law suggests that class actions consolidate litigation to achieve economies of scale and provide an appropriate legal remedy for small injuries that are large on aggregate,
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Accepts that courts from time to time have to deal with multi-party actions, but does not see collective litigation as the main means of collective redress; stresses that redress can also be provided using self-regulatory and voluntary as well as informal dispute-resolution mechanisms;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes the efforts made by the US Supreme Court to limit frivolous litigation and the abuse of the US class action system∗, and stresses that Europe must refrain from introducing a US-style class action system or any system which would lend itself to similar abuse3;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Stresses that any EU instrument on collective redress should be limited to introducing a non-binding framework outlining common minimum standards, in line with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; believes that the specific issues arising in the competition field should be laid down in separate competition-specific legislative instruments;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Rejects any system whereby abusive litigation and unmeritorious claims are encouraged by the introduction of contingency fees for lawyers; is orf the availability of punitive damagesopinion that compensatory damages can be augmented with punitive damages only in exceptional cases, i.e. when the defendant's behaviour is clearly proven malicious, oppressive, gross or fraudulent;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Takes the view that disputes frequently cover different industry sectors and different areas of law and that victims of unlawful behaviour face the samein some sectors face specific difficulties in obtaining redress in diff, believes that in those policy fields wherent spectors, and is concerned that anyific difficulties exist, these should be addressed by specific EU initiatives, in the field of collective redress will result in a fragmentation of national procedural and damages laws which will weaken and not strengthen access to justice within the EU; in the event that it is decided after due consideration that a Union scheme of collective redress is needed and desirable, asks that any proposal in the field of collective redress should take the form of a horizontal instrument providing uniform access to justice within the EUf a concrete need for EU action is identified; calls for specific measures to be adopted without further delay to address the specific issues arising, in the competition field, in particular with regard to collective redress that follows on from an infringement decision adopted by the Commission or a national competition authority; believes that horizontal difficulties faced by victims across all sectors could be addressed by a horizontal instrument, if the need for such EU action is identified;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that any horizontalEU instrument must cover all aspects of obtaining damages collectively; further stresses that, in particular, procedural and international private-law issues must apply to collective actions in general irrespective of the sector concerned, whereas limited sectoral rules, dealing with matters such as the potential binding effect of decisions adopted by national competition authorities in the field of EU antitrust law, should be laid down, for instance, in a separate chapter of the horizontalon collective redress should be limited to introducing common minimum standards, in line with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; believes that the specific issues arising in the competition field should be laid down in separate competition-specific legislative instrument itselfs;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Believes that the individual damage or loss suffered plays a pivotal role when deciding to file an action, and takes the view that in line with Regulation No 861/2007 on a European Small Claims Procedure, collective redress under a horizontal instrument could be available where the value of each individual claim does not exceed EUR 2 000;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 2
Paragraph 12 – indent 2
– Member States should designate organisations qualified to bring representative actions, and European criteria are needed which clearly define these qualified entities; these criteria could be based on Article 3 of Directive 2009/22/EC on injunctions for the protection of consumer interests*9 but need to be further specified in order to ensure that abusive litigation is avoided while facilitating access to justice for citizens and companies; such criteria should cover, inter alia, the financial and human resources of qualifying organisations;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 5
Paragraph 12 – indent 5
– as a general rule, only the actual damage sustained may be compensated: punitive damages must be prohibited; compensatory damages can only be augmented with punitive damages when the defendant's behaviour is clearly proven to be malicious, oppressive, gross or fraudulent; by virtue of the concept of compensation the damages awarded must be distributed to individual victims in proportion to the harm they sustained individually; by and large, contingency fees are unknown in Europe and must be rejected;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 6
Paragraph 12 – indent 6
– collective claimants must not be in a better position than individual claimants, and each claimant must provide evidence for his claim; the incentive for abuse of an obligation to disclose documents to the claimants (‘discovery’) dis mostly unknown in Europe and must be rejected at European levelappears if the claimant has to pay the defendant's cost of compliance, thus internalising the full cost of the discovery request;