Activities of Luigi BERLINGUER

Draft opinion
Citation 2 a (new)

– having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

2014/02/03
Committee: JURI

2014/2006(INI)

Draft opinion
Citation 3 a (new)

– having regard to the activities, annual reports and studies of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights,

2014/02/03
Committee: JURI

2014/2006(INI)

Draft opinion
Citation 3 b (new)

– having regard to its resolution of 3 July 2013 on the situation of fundamental rights: standards and practices in Hungary (pursuant to the European Parliament resolution of 16 February 2012),

2014/02/03
Committee: JURI

2014/2006(INI)

Draft opinion
Citation 4 a (new)

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0000/2014),

2014/02/03
Committee: JURI

A. whereas the 2013 Justice Scoreboard ~~focuses exclusively on~~deals with civil, commercial and administrative justice, which are of importance for the European Semester as regards boosting competitiveness and growth~~, but does not cover criminal justice, which has no direct economic impact and is, according to the Treaties, to a much greater extent a national responsibility~~;

2014/02/03
Committee: JURI

2014/2006(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas the Justice Scoreboard is currently dealt with in the context of the European economic semester, thus over- emphasising the economic value of justice; whereas justice is a value in itself and should be accessible to all irrespective of economic interests;

2014/02/03
Committee: JURI

2014/2006(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital B

B. whereas any evaluation of criminal justice should take account of the prerogatives of the Member States and national law in this area, and remain within the bounds of the Union’s responsibility for coordination ~~only; whereas any value judgment regarding national criminal justice systems should be avoided~~;

2014/02/03
Committee: JURI

2014/2006(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital C

C. whereas the independence of the judiciary and the justice system should be respected, and the legislative and executive branches of government should therefore exercise the utmost care when assessing their performance in the field of civil, commercial and administrative justice and also criminal justice;

2014/02/03
Committee: JURI

2014/2006(INI)

Draft opinion
Recital E

E. whereas ~~the principle of the rule of law should not be reduced to a question of judicial efficiency in the field of criminal~~judicial efficiency in the field of criminal law is an important element of the principle of the rule of law;

2014/02/03
Committee: JURI

2014/2006(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

~~1. Calls on the Commission and the European Parliament to fully respect the limits on EU competences in the area of criminal justice;~~deleted

2014/02/03
Committee: JURI

2014/2006(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Points out that any future extension of the scope of the Justice Scoreboard should be carried out in accordance with the Treaties and in consultation with the European Parliament and the Member States;

2014/02/03
Committee: JURI

2014/2006(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Underlines that the true aim of the Justice Scoreboard is to compile and compare statistical data with the aim of helping Member States to develop their national judicial systems; ~~stresses, therefore, that the comparison of data in the field of criminal justice is a complex operation in view of the considerabl~~acknowledges the sensitivity of criminal justice and therefore calls on the European Commission to undertake any further extension of the scope of the Justice Scoreboard in close cooperation with the European Parliament and the Member States, bearing in mind the differences existing between national justice systems, and ~~that crimin~~considering that some goals such as impartial justice can~~not always be assessed using statistically quantifiable parameters~~d the quality of justice cannot be measured easily;

2014/02/03
Committee: JURI

2014/2006(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Draws attention to the role of the Council of Europe in collating data and promoting best practice with regard to criminal justice and the rule of law~~, and believes that duplication of work should be avoided~~; in this respect, notes also the work of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights in this area and believes that any evaluation undertaken by the European Commission should be complementary;

2014/02/03
Committee: JURI

2014/2006(INI)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that the rule of law is a ~~wide~~complex concept which requires that the actions of public bodies comply with the legal framework laid down by national constitutions and the laws and regulations deriving therefrom, and should not be reduced to a criminal law issue; takes the view that the assessment of criminal justice systems alone does not permit blanket conclusions to be drawn regarding compliance with the principle of the rule of law; stresses, therefore, that any evaluation of criminal justice should not be connected to a possible new rule- of-law mechanism.

2014/02/03
Committee: JURI

2013/2117(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas a non-binding comparative exercise has the merits of identifying ~~successes and shortcomings and enabling~~improvements and backward steps and of striving towards the exchange of best practices across the Union while leaving the autonomy of national legal and judicial systems untouched;

2013/10/24
Committee: JURI

2013/2117(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Member States to examine the results of the 2013 Justice Scoreboard closely and to determine whether any consequences need to be drawn therefrom for the organisation and progress of their respective civil, commercial and administrative justice systems;

2013/10/24
Committee: JURI

2013/2117(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. States its interest in receiving data on cross-border cases, which often involve a greater degree of complexity than purely domestic cases and demonstrate the obstacles that EU citizens face when exercising their rights deriving from the EU single market, particularly in the application of EU law;

2013/10/24
Committee: JURI

2013/2117(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Recalls the role of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) in gathering ~~the~~ relevant data at regional level, and the leading role of the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters in facilitating access to knowledge on EU and national law in this field;

2013/10/24
Committee: JURI

2013/2114(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. Ccalls on the Commission and Member States to examine the ~~possibility of legalising works sharing for non-~~interpretation of the copying behaviours in the digital environment, and comme~~rcial purposes~~ forward with solutions, so as to guarantee consumers access to a wide variety of content and real choice in terms of cultural diversity;

2013/10/21
Committee: JURI

2013/2024(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Fears that the economic crisis may develop into a crisis of democracy and believes that strong political leadership isand a further strengthening of the European citizenship are necessary in order to defend democratic achievements;

2013/09/10
Committee: JURI LIBE AFCO

2013/2024(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)

23 a. Recalls that the Stockholm Programme contains a number of major initiatives in the field of civil law, including the easier recognition of judgments, the Union-wide validity of wills, easier procedures for the acceptance of public documents, the simpler cross- border enforcement of debts and Union initiatives in the field of legal training;

2013/09/10
Committee: JURI LIBE AFCO

2013/2024(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 b (new)

23 b. Notes that only three pieces of legislation in this field have been adopted so far, namely the Brussels I Recast, the Successions Regulation and the Rome III Regulation, of which only the third is applicable today, and that, whereas the Commission has made a signification number of proposals called for in the Stockholm Programme, several major proposals are still outstanding, including the mutual recognition of the effects of civil status documents and the 14th Company Law Directive;

2013/09/10
Committee: JURI LIBE AFCO

2013/2024(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 50 a (new)

50 a. Stresses that high-quality justice systems can play a key role in restoring confidence, bringing about a return to growth, and contributing to trust and stability; points out that predictable, timely and enforceable justice decisions are important structural components of an attractive business environment, as outlined in the European Commission communication "The EU Justice scoreboard, a tool to promote effective justice and growth"1. __________________ 1 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Central Bank, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM(2013) 160 final;

2013/09/10
Committee: JURI LIBE AFCO

2013/0119(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1

This Regulation provides for a dispensation from legalisation or similar formality and for a simplification of other formalities related to the acceptance of ~~certain~~ public documents issued by authorities of the Member States.

2013/09/30
Committee: JURI

2013/0119(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – point 1

(1) ‘public documents’ means: (a) documents ~~issued~~drawn up by authorities of athe Member State ~~and having formal evidentiary value relating to: (a) birth; (b) death; (c) name~~s; (b) documents drawn up by an authority or an official connected with the courts or tribunals of the Member State, including those drawn up by a public prosecutor, a clerk of the court or a bailiff; (dc) ~~marriage and registered partnership; (e) parenthood; (f) adoption; (g) residence; (h) citizenship and nationality; (i) real estate; (j) legal status and represent~~authentic instruments; (d) official certificates which are placed on documents signed by persons in their private capacity, such as official certificates recording the registration of a ~~company~~document or othe~~r undertaking; (k) intellectual property rights; (l) absence of a criminal record~~ fact that it was in existence on a certain date, and official and notarial authentications of signatures;

2013/09/30
Committee: JURI

2012/2024(INI)

Proposal for a recommendation
Citation 13 a (new)

- having regard to the 'Public service principles for the EU civil service' published by the European Ombudsman on 19 June 2012;

2012/09/19
Committee: JURI

2012/2024(INI)

Proposal for a recommendation
Recital J a(new)

Ja. whereas a European Law of Administrative Procedure would help the Union´s Administration in using its power of internal organisation to facilitate and promote the highest standards of administration;

2012/09/19
Committee: JURI

2012/2024(INI)

Proposal for a recommendation
Annex – Recommendation 3 – indent 7 – paragraph 1

Principle of transparency: the Union's administration shall be open. It shall document the administrative procedures and keep adequate records of incoming and outgoing mail, documents received and the decisions and measures taken.

2012/09/19
Committee: JURI

2012/0360(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 14

Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000
Recital 20 a

(20a) This Regulation should ensure the efficient administration of insolvency proceedings relating to different companies forming part of a group of companies. Where insolvency proceedings have been opened for several companies of the same group, these proceedings should be properly coordinated, in particular in order to prevent the insolvency of one company in the group from jeopardising the future of the others. The various liquidators and the courts involved should therefore be under the same obligation to cooperate and communicate with each other as those involved in main and secondary proceedings relating to the same debtor. In addition, a liquidator appointed in proceedings relating to a member of a group of companies should have standing to propose a rescue plan in the proceedings concerning another member of the same group to the extent such a tool is available under national insolvency law.

2013/10/16
Committee: JURI

2012/0360(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 22

Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

1. The courts of the Member State within the territory of which the centre of a debtor's main interests is situated shall have jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings ("main proceedings"). The centre of main interests shall be the place where the debtor conducts the administration of his interests on a regular basis prior to the opening of insolvency proceedings or provisional proceedings and which is ascertainable by third parties.

2013/10/16
Committee: JURI

2012/0360(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 23

Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000
Article 3b – paragraph 2

2. Where insolvency proceedings are opened in accordance with national law without a decision by a court, the ~~liquidator appointed in such proceedings~~court which appointed the liquidator shall examine whether the Member State in which the proceedings are pending has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 3. Where this is the case, the liquidator shall specify the grounds on which jurisdiction is based and, in particular, whether jurisdiction is based on Article 3(1) or (2).

2013/10/16
Committee: JURI

2012/0360(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 28 a (new)

Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000
Article 20 – paragraph 2 a (new)

(2a) Where the creditors include employees of the insolvent firm, those employees shall have a right of pre- emption with regard to the recovery of the sums owed.

2013/10/16
Committee: JURI

2012/0360(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 30

Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000
Article 21 – paragraph 1

1. Until such time as the system of interconnection of insolvency registers referred to in Article 20b is established, the liquidator shall request that notice of the judgment opening insolvency proceedings and, where appropriate, the decision appointing him, be published in any other Member State where an establishment of the debtor is located in accordance with the publication procedures provided for in that State. Such publication shall ~~specify the liquidator appointed and whether the jurisdiction rule applied is that pursuant to Article 3(1) or (2)~~cover the information provided for in Article 20a.

2013/10/16
Committee: JURI

2012/0360(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 34

Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000
Article 29 a – paragraph 4

4. The liquidator in the main proceedings shall be notified of the decision to open secondary proceedings and shall have the right to challenge that decision within three weeks of the date of receipt of such notification.

2013/10/16
Committee: JURI

2012/0360(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 45

Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000
Article 42 d – paragraph 2

2. The court having opened proceedings referred to in point b) of paragraph 1 shall stay the proceedings in whole or in part if ~~it is proven~~the liquidator provides sufficient evidence that such a stay would be to the benefit of the creditors in these proceedings. Such a stay may be ordered for up to t~~hree~~wo months and may be continued or renewed for the same period. The court ordering the stay may require the liquidator to take any suitable measure to guarantee the interests of the creditors in the proceedings.

2013/10/16
Committee: JURI

2012/0360(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 45

Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000
Article 42 d a (new)

Article 42da Opening of group coordination proceedings 1. Group coordination proceedings may be brought by an insolvency representative in any court having jurisdiction over the insolvency proceedings of a member of the group, provided that: (a) insolvency proceedings with respect to that member of the group are pending; and (b) the members of the group having their centre of main interests in the Member State of the court seized to open the group coordination proceedings perform crucial functions within the group. 2. Where more than one court is seized to open group coordination proceedings, the group coordination proceedings shall be opened in the Member State where the most crucial functions within the group are performed. To that extent the courts seized shall communicate and cooperate in accordance with Article 42b. Where the most crucial functions cannot be determined, the first court seized may open group coordination proceedings provided that the conditions for opening such proceedings are satisfied.

2013/10/16
Committee: JURI

2012/0360(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 45

Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000
Article 42 d b (new)

Article 42db Tasks and rights of the coordinator 1. The court opening group coordination proceedings shall appoint a coordinator. The coordinator shall be independent of the group members and their creditors. The coordinator shall have the task of: (a) identifying and outlining procedural and substantive recommendations for the coordinated conduct of the insolvency proceedings; (b) mediating disputes arising between two or more insolvency representatives of group members; and (c) presenting a group coordination plan that identifies, describes and recommends a comprehensive set of measures appropriate to an integrated approach to the resolution of the group members’ insolvencies. In particular, the plan may include recommendations on: (i) the measures to be taken in order to re- establish the economic performance and the financial soundness of the group or any part of it; (ii) the settlement of intra-group disputes, in particular with respect to intra-group transactions and avoidance actions; (iii) agreements between the insolvency representatives of the insolvent group members. 2. The coordinator shall have the right to: (a) be heard and to participate, in particular by attending creditors' meetings, in any of the proceedings opened with respect to any member of the group; (b) present and explain a group coordination plan approved in accordance with Article 42dc(3); (c) request information from any insolvency representative that is or might be of use when identifying and outlining strategies and measures for coordinating the proceedings; and (d) request a stay for a period of up to three months of proceedings opened with respect to any other member of the group and to request the cessation of that stay.

2013/10/16
Committee: JURI

2012/0360(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – point 45

Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000
Article 42 d c (new)

Article 42dc Court approval of group coordination plan 1. Insolvency representatives appointed for insolvency proceedings that would be affected by the implementation of a group coordination plan may comment on the draft of the plan within a period of no more than 15 days set by the coordinator when submitting the plan. 2. The draft plan submitted for court approval shall be accompanied by (a) a description of how paragraph 1 was complied with, drafted by the coordinator; (b) the comments received by the insolvency representatives as at the time of submission of the draft plan; (c) a reasoned statement by the coordinator as to how the comments have, or have not, been reflected in the draft plan. 3. The court shall approve the plan if it is satisfied that the coordinator complied with the formal requirements of paragraph 2 and of point (c) of paragraph 1 of Article 42db.

2013/10/16
Committee: JURI

2012/0180(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Member States may decide that Titles I, II and IV, with the exception of Articles 36 and 40, shall apply to collecting societies established outside the Union which engage in activities in their territory.

2013/06/06
Committee: JURI

2012/0180(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) 'rightholder' means any natural person or legal entity other than a collecting society that holds a copyright or related right or ~~who under an agreement for the exploitation of rights is entitled to a share of the rights revenue from any of the rights managed by the collecting society~~a right to remuneration laid down by law;

2013/06/06
Committee: JURI

2012/0180(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c

c) 'member of a collecting society' means a rightholder ~~or an entity directly representing rightholders~~as defined in Article 3(1)(b) or a non-profit making entity, including other collecting societies and associations of rightholders, fulfilling the membership requirements of the collecting society and admitted by it;

2013/06/06
Committee: JURI

2012/0180(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 b (new)

This Directive shall apply without prejudice to existing or future arrangements concerning the management of rights in Member States such as the mandatory collective management of exclusive rights or rights to remuneration laid down by law or extended collective licensing.

2013/06/06
Committee: JURI

2012/0180(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Tariffs for exclusive rights shall ~~reflect the economic value of the rights in trade and of~~ensure that rightholders receive a fair and proportionate share of the revenues arising from the use of the works and reflect the service provided by the collecting society.

2013/06/06
Committee: JURI

2012/0180(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3

In the absence of any national law which establishes the amounts due to rightholders in respect of a right to remuneration and a right to compensation, the collecting society shall base its own determination of those amounts due, on the ~~economic value of those rights in trade~~same criteria.

2013/06/06
Committee: JURI

2012/0180(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Users and producers shall provide collecting societies, free of charge, with statements of use, containing the information needed to identify sound works and their rightholders.

2013/06/06
Committee: JURI

2012/0180(COD)

Gianni PITTELLA, Silvia COSTA, Luigi BERLINGUER

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 a (new)

Article 15 a Obligations of users 1. Member States shall ensure that users and producers comply with the payment time limits and schedules provided for in the licences and agreements concluded with the collecting societies in order for them to be able to comply with their own time limits for distribution to rightholders. 2. Member States shall ensure that users and producers provide the collecting societies with which they have concluded a licence or an agreement with regular, precise and prompt information, free of charge, on the use of rights, rightholders and works covered by the licence or agreement, in order for the societies to meet their own obligations to rightholders. 3. Member States shall ensure that users comply with international and sectoral standards on data transfer, and in their exchange of information with collecting societies use international identifiers of works and rightholders where they exist.

2013/06/06
Committee: JURI

2011/2294(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Urges all EU countries to implement the national qualification frameworks linked to the Qualifications Framework of the EHEA and to develop and financially support mutual recognition;

2012/02/02
Committee: CULT

2011/2294(INI)

Gianni PITTELLA, Silvia COSTA, Luigi BERLINGUER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Stresses that greater coordination among Member States in the field of higher education - also through a strong financial and political support for agreements on common core curricula and well defined learning outcomes - is a precondition for the achievement of the goals of employability and growth in Europe;

2012/02/02
Committee: CULT

2011/2089(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the benefits of the ADR method are undisputed, fair access to justice should remain available to all EU citizens,

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)

Bb. 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,

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas national and European authorities play a pivotal role in the enforcement of EU law, and private enforcement ~~can~~should only supplement, but not replace, public enforcement,

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Motion for a resolution
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∗3, and stresses that Europe must refrain from introducing a US-style class action system or any system which ~~would lend itself to similar abuse~~does not respect European legal traditions;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the efforts of Member States to strengthen the rights of victims of unlawful behaviour by introducing legislation aimed at facilitating redress while avoiding an abusive litigation culture; stresses in this context that the Commission has still not put forward convincing evidence that, pursuant to the principle of subsidiarity, action is needed at EU level in order to ensure that victims of unlawful behaviour arthat the current EU regulatory framework to put an end to infringements and encourage competition fails to allow for consumers to be compensated for the damage ~~or loss~~s suffered;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Underlines the considerable benefits of collective judicial actions in terms of costs and legal certainty for the claimants, defendants and the judicial system alike by avoiding parallel litigation of similar claims;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Calls on the Commission to foster effective relief at EU level for consumers and SMEs by means of a EU-wide legal instrument on collective redress for 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, consistent and parallel with specific sectoral legislative initiatives;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Reiterates that the Commission has still not indicated wh~~Considers that Art 114 TFEU would be the appropriate legal basis ~~it considers appropriate~~ for any measures in the field of collective redress;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Notes that enforcement mechanisms that already exist at EU level ~~and believes that~~, in particular, Regulation No 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure ~~provides efficient and effective access to justice by~~intended to simplify~~ing~~ cross- border litigation involving claims for a sum of less than EUR 2 000 are not designed to provide effective access to justice in cases where a large number of victims suffer the same damage;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Takes the view that injunctive relief could also plays an important role in safeguarding rights which citizens and companies enjoy under EU law and believes that the mechanisms introduced under Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on Consumer Protection Cooperation∗4, as well as Directive 2009/22/EC on injunctions for the protection of consumer interests∗5, can be significantly improved so as to foster cooperation and injunctive relief in cross- border situations;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Considers that injunctive relief should focus both on the protection of the individual interest and ~~not~~ the public interest~~, and calls for caution when widening access to justice for organisations since these should not enjoy easier access to justice than individuals~~;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Motion for a resolution
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 same difficulties in obtaining redress in different sectors, and is concerned that any 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 legal instrument including a set of common principles providing uniform access to justice within the EU; and specifically dealing with all the breaches of consumers' rights regardless of the policy field;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Believes that the current exploratory work on an EU scheme of collective redress should not cause further delays in adopting sector-specific legislative initiatives in the field of competition, environment or consumers' law;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Stresses that any horizontal legally binding 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 horizontal instrument itself;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Motion for a resolution
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;deleted

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Considers that collective action under a horizontal instrument should be permissible where the defendant and victims represented are not domiciled in the same Member State (cross-border dimension) and where the rights alleged to have been infringed are granted by EU legislation (infringement of EU law) and in case of national infringements;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 1 (new)

– the judge should maintain discretionary powers on the admissibility of collective damage claims;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – indent 1

– ~~only a~~ representative bodyies may bring an action on behalf of a clearly identified group~~, and identification of the group members must have taken place before the claim is brought (‘opt-in procedure’)~~;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

~~7 OJ L 166, 11.6.1998, p. 51~~ 12a. Recognises, however, that the opt-in system might entail higher costs for consumers organisations and therefore calls on the Commission to consider a flexible system which will allow the largest number of victims to seek compensation, while respecting the existing European systems in line with the principle of subsidiarity but also the consumers' right to be duly informed so as to avoid their being automatically represented without their knowledge: – 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 interests7but need to be further specified in order to ensure that abusive litigation is avoided; such criteria should cover, inter alia, the financial and human resources of qualifying organisations; – a class action system has to be rejected on the grounds that it is contrary to many Member States’ legal orders and violates the rights of any victim who might participate in the procedure unknowingly and yet would be bound by the court’s decision; – victims must in any case be free to seek the alternative of individual compensatory redress before a competent court; – only the actual damage sustained may be compensated: punitive damages must be prohibited; 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; – collective claimants must not be in a better position than individual claimants, and each claimant must provide evidence for his claim; an obligation to disclose documents to the claimants (‘discovery’) must remain under judicial scrutiny; – there can be no action without financial risk and Member States are to determine their own rules on a fair allocation of costs according to which the unsuccessful party must bear the costs of the other party; – the Member States should set out any conditions or guidelines on the funding of damages claims;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Stresses that many of the infringements of Union law identified by the Commission in the field of EU consumer protection measures call for the strengthening of injunctive relief*8, ~~and asks the Commission to identify the EU legislation in respect of which it is difficult to obtain compensatory redress~~while acknowledging that injunctive relief is not sufficient when victims have suffered damage and have the right to compensation;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2089(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Notes that ADR mechanisms often depend on the trader's willingness to cooperate and the availability of an effective judicial redress system would act as a strong incentive for parties to agree on out -of -court settlement, which is likely to avoid a considerable number of cases, thereby avoiding litigation;

2011/09/22
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

1 Da. whereas it is necessary to distinguish between conventional cross-border transactions and e-commerce, where specific problems exist and the transaction costs are different; whereas it is also necessary for the purposes of future impact assessments, to carefully and precisely define how transaction costs Eurobarometer 224, 2008, p. 4. are made up;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas it is clear that the application of foreign (consumer) law to cross-border transactions under the Rome-I Regulation*3 has been seen to entail considerable transaction costs for businesses, in particular for SMEs, which have been estimated at €15 000 per business and per ~~1 UK Federation of Small Businesses, Position paper on Rome I (2007). 2 OJ L 177, 4.7.2008, p. 6. 3 OJ L 177, 4.7.2008, p. 6.~~ Member State*1,

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas this needs verifying in the light of the application of Article 6(2) and Article 4(1), point (a) of the Rome-I Regulation, which allows businesses to apply their national law, bearing in mind that Rome I has only been applied since December 2009;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas such transaction costs are perceived as ~~important obstacles to cross- border trade, as confirmed by 60 % of EU retailers interviewed in 20081 , and whereas 46 % said harmonised rules would help to increase~~being one of the obstacles to cross-border ~~sales,~~trade;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Evelyn REGNER, Catherine STIHLER

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

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Evelyn REGNER, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

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

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas there is evidence that the online market remains fragmented: in a survey, 61 % of 10 964 test cross-border orders failed, inter alia because traders refused to serve the consumer's country1; whereas, on the other hand,a Commission study revealed that 61 % of 10 964 test cross-border orders failed and that cross-border shopping appears to increase consumers' chances of finding a cheaper offer*2 and of finding products not available domestically online*,3, whereas the figure of 61% seems to be very high and to warrant further study, verification and assessment;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas any steps taken in the area of European contract law must be co~~her~~nsistent with the expected Consumer Rights Directive, which will have a significant impact on the content and on the level of harmonisation of a possible future instrument in the field of European Contract Law; whereas it would be necessary to constantly and carefully monitor its implementation in the next months in order to define which should be the scope of the OI;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Evelyn REGNER, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

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 con~~going discussion~~tent 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

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Favours the option 4 of setting up an optional instrument (OI) by means of a regulation after clarification of the legal basis; believes that such an OI could be complemented by a ‘toolbox’ that should be endorsed by means of an interinstitutional agreement;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Calls on the Commission to clarify the contents of the toolbox and to consider complementing the OI by "model contract terms and conditions" for small businesses, translated into all languages; further calls on the Commission to expand the range of autonomous cross- border procedural instruments so as to facilitate the enforcement of cross-border transactions;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Sees a ~~compelling~~possible practical advantage in the flexible and voluntary nature of an opt- in instrument; ~~calls, however,~~however calls on the Commission to better clarify which contracting party will have the choice between the OI and the "normally" applicable law and how the Commission intends to reduce transaction costs; calls on the Commission to include in any proposal for an OI a mechanism for regular monitoring and review, with the close involvement of all parties concerned in order to ensure that the OI keeps up with the existing acquis, with market needs and with legal and economic developments;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Calls on the Commission to clarify the advantages of such an instrument for both consumers and businesses;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Evelyn REGNER, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

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

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5c. Insists that the legislation creating the OI be adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure and that the optional instrument itself be subject to scrutiny and amendment under that procedure;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Believes that both business-to-business and business-to-consumer contracts should be covered; emphasises that the level of consumer protection would need to be high, a~~s mandatory national prov~~nd wishes for an explanation as to how this can be achievable; calls upon the Commission~~s, including~~ to bear in mind th~~e area of consumer law, w~~at a satisfactory solution must be foulnd ~~be replaced~~to problems of private international law;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Sees no reason why an~~Believes that the OI should not be available ~~as an opt-in both in cross-border and domestic situations, as this would have the advantages of simplicity and cost- saving,~~in the first instance and until a sufficient esxpe~~cially for the SME sector; believes, however, that the effects of a domestic opt-in on national bodies of contract law merit specific analysi~~rience has been acquired, and then only as an opt-in in cross border situations;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Calls on the Commission and the Expert Group to clarify what is to be considered as "core contractual law issues";

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Sees benefits in an OI containing specific provisions for the most frequent types of contract, in particular for the sale of goods and provision of services; reiterates its earlier call to include insurance contracts within the scope of the OI, believing that such an instrument could be particularly useful for small-scale insurance contracts; points out that some specific issues in connection with which an OI might be beneficial have been raised, such as digital rights and beneficial ownership; considers that, on the other hand, there might be a need to exclude certain types of complex public law contracts; in any case believes that the scope of the OI should be limited in the first instance;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Believes that the OI should be coherent with the existing acquis in contract law;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. ~~Note~~Considers that the~~re seems to be a clear constituency among SMEs which is expecting benefits from an OI, with the caveat that it should be drawn up in a~~ OI should be drawn up in a simple, clear and balanced manner which makes it ~~simple and~~ attractive to use for all parties, in particular SMEs and consumers;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Recalls that further work on cross- border alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which is speedy and cost-effective in particular for SMEs and consumers, remains a priority, but emphasises that, if the parties use one body of law provided by an OI, ADR will be further facilitated; calls on the Commission to consider synergies when putting forward a proposal; ~~1 United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Report of Working Group III (Online Dispute Resolution)on the work of its twenty-second session (Vienna, 13-17 December 2010), p. 8, 10.~~

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Notes concerns that consumers seldom feel they have a choice with regard to contract terms and are confronted with a ‘take it or leave it’ situation; strongly believes that an attractive OI, by opening up business opportunities and strengthening competition, will actually broaden the overall choice available to consumers while ensuring a high level of protection; wishes however for an explanation as to how this high level of protection can be achievable and as to how, at the same time, it would be possible to make the OI attractive to business;

2011/03/04
Committee: JURI

2011/2013(INI)

Luigi BERLINGUER, Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Evelyn REGNER, Bernhard RAPKAY, Catherine STIHLER

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

2011/0401(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27 a (new)

(27a) Universities play a fundamental role within the scientific and technological base of the Union as basic institutions of excellence, both in training and research, due to their essential role of linking the implementation of the European Higher Education Area to the European Research Area.

2012/06/29
Committee: ITRE

2011/0401(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27 b (new)

(27b) In order to maximize the impact of Horizon 2020 special consideration should be given to basic science as well as to multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches as necessary elements for major scientific progress. Breakthroughs in science often take place at the boundaries or intersections of disciplines. Furthermore, the complexity of the problems and challenges that Europe is facing requires solutions that can only be tackled from several disciplines working together.

2012/06/29
Committee: ITRE

2011/0401(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 1 – Part 1 – point 1 – point 1.3 – paragraph 5

By 2020, the ERC therefore shall aim to demonstrate: that the best researchers are participating in the ERC's competitions, that ERC funding has led directly to scientific publications of the highest quality and to the commercialisation and application of innovative technologies and ideas and that the ERC has contributed significantly to making Europe a more attractive environment for the world's best scientists. In particular, the ERC shall target a measurable improvement in the Union's share of the world's top 1 % most highly cited publications. In addition it shall aim at a substantial increase in the number of excellent researchers from outside Europe whom it funds and specific improvements in institutional practices and national policies to support top researchers. Last but not least, the possibility should be evaluated of applying innovative technologies and ideas up to a complete commercialisation.

2012/07/02
Committee: ITRE

2011/0401(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 1 – Part 1 – point 2 – point 2.2 – paragraph 1

Radical breakthroughs with a transformative impact increasingly rely on intense collaboration across disciplines in science and technology (for instance, information and communication, biology, chemistry, mathematics, physics, earth system sciences, material sciences, neuro- and cognitive sciences, social sciences or economics) and with the arts and humanities. This requires not only excellence in science and technology but also new attitudes and novel interactions between a broad range of players in research.

2012/07/02
Committee: ITRE

2011/0401(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 1 – Part 1 – point 3 – point 3.3 – point a – paragraph 2

Key activities shall be to provide excellent and innovative training, also in the field of the third mission of university, to early- stage researchers at post-graduate level via interdisciplinary projects or doctoral programmes involving universities, research institutions, businesses, SMEs and other socio-economic groups from different countries. This will improve career prospects for young post-graduate researchers in both the public and private sectors.

2012/07/02
Committee: ITRE

2011/0401(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 1 – Part 1 – point 4 – point 4.2 – paragraph 2

Further development and wider use of research infrastructures at Union level will make a significant contribution to development of the European Research Area. ~~While the role of Member States remains central in developing and financing research infrastructures, t~~The Union plays an important part in supporting infrastructure at Union level, fostering the emergence of new facilities, opening up broad access to national and European infrastructures, and making sure that regional, national, European and international policies are consistent and effective. It is not only necessary to avoid duplication of effort and to coordinate and rationalise use of the facilities, but also to pool resources so that the Union can also acquire and operate research infrastructures at world level.

2012/07/02
Committee: ITRE

2011/0401(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Annex 1 – Part 3 – point 6.3 – point 6.3.1 – paragraph 2 – point a

(a) mechanisms to promote smart, sustainable and inclusive growth taking into account the European cultural heterogeneity;

2012/07/03
Committee: ITRE

2011/0399(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 15

(15) 'results‘ means any data, knowledge ~~and~~, information and publication, whatever their form or nature, whether or not they can be protected, which are generated in the action as well as any attached rights, including intellectual property rights;

2012/07/02
Committee: ITRE

2011/0399(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 a (new)

Article 17a Time to Grant The Commission or the relevant funding body shall ensure that the time between the deadline for proposals as established by the individual calls for proposals and the signature of the grant agreement, or where applicable the grant decision, shall be limited to a maximum period of six months. A prolongation by one additional month may be applied in exceptional cases. Consequences for both the Commission and participants should be provided. For example after the period of six months the Commission will be obliged to stipulate the grant agreement and the participant in good faith will be able to start the implementation of the research.

2012/07/02
Committee: ITRE

2011/0399(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1

1. The members of any consortium wishing to participate in an action shall appoint one of them to act as coordinator which shall be identified in the grant agreement. The coordinator shall be the mandatory contact between the members of consortium, represent the consortium in relations with the Commission or the relevant funding body and monitor the compliance by members of consortium with their obligations under the grant agreement.

2012/07/02
Committee: ITRE

2011/0399(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 3

3. The consortium may propose to add or remove a participant or change a coordinator in accordance with the respective provisions of the grant agreement and the consortium agreement, provided that this change is in conformity with the ~~condition~~rules for participation, does not adversely affect the implementation of the action and is not contrary to the principle of equal treatment.

2012/07/02
Committee: ITRE

2011/0399(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Value added tax ('VAT') and any other indirect tax paid by, and which cannot be refunded to, the beneficiary according to the applicable national legislation, shall be considered as eligible costs

2012/07/03
Committee: ITRE

2011/0399(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Alternatively to paragraph 1, a beneficiary may opt to determine its indirect eligible costs based on indirect costs that actually incurred in direct relationship with the eligible direct costs attributed to the project, according to the beneficiary's usual cost accounting practices. Consequently, the reimbursement rates as indicated in Article 22(3) will be applied

2012/07/03
Committee: ITRE

2011/0399(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1

1. Eligible personnel costs shall ~~only~~ cover the ~~actual~~ hours worked by the persons directly carrying out work under the action~~. The evidence regarding the actual hours worked shall be provided by the participant, normally through a time recording system.~~

2012/07/03
Committee: ITRE

2011/0399(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 2

2. For persons working exclusively for the action, no time recording is required. In such cases, the participant shall sign a declaration confirming that the person concerned has worked exclusively for the action. The number of annual productive hours which may be used by the beneficiary should be determined as follows: a) a standard provided by the Commission or b) a standard provided by the beneficiary and agreed by the Commission or c) the actual productive hours.

2012/07/03
Committee: ITRE

2011/0399(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. The evidence regarding the hours worked shall be provided by the participant, normally through a time recording system. For persons working exclusively for the action, no time recording is required. In such cases, the participant shall sign a declaration confirming that the person concerned has worked exclusively for the action.

2012/07/03
Committee: ITRE

2011/0399(COD)

Katarína ROTH NEVEĎALOVÁ, Chrysoula PALIADELI, Silvia COSTA, Petra KAMMEREVERT, Luigi BERLINGUER, Isabelle THOMAS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 3

3. The grant agreement shall contain the minimum requirements for the time recording system ~~as well as the number of annual productive hours to be used for the calculation of the hourly personnel rates~~.

2012/07/03
Committee: ITRE

2011/0371(COD)

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 a (new) - title (new)

Article 14a The European Student Loan Guarantee Facility

2012/10/11
Committee: CULT

2011/0371(COD)

Katarína ROTH NEVEĎALOVÁ, Chrysoula PALIADELI, Silvia COSTA, Petra KAMMEREVERT, Luigi BERLINGUER, Isabelle THOMAS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 a (new) - paragraph 1 (new)

1. A European Student Loan Guarantee Facility ('the Facility') shall be established with the aim of providing students with an additional tool enabling them to enhance their mobility in the context of studies at the level of a master's degree. This experimental tool shall be complementary to, and shall not replace, the grant systems supporting student mobility which are already in place at local, national and Union level.

2012/10/11
Committee: CULT

2011/0371(COD)

Katarína ROTH NEVEĎALOVÁ, Chrysoula PALIADELI, Silvia COSTA, Petra KAMMEREVERT, Luigi BERLINGUER, Isabelle THOMAS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 a (new) - paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. The Facility shall be open to all students resident in a participating country as defined in Article 18(1), who wish to study for a full master's degree in another participating country for one or two years.

2012/10/11
Committee: CULT

2011/0371(COD)

Katarína ROTH NEVEĎALOVÁ, Chrysoula PALIADELI, Silvia COSTA, Petra KAMMEREVERT, Luigi BERLINGUER, Isabelle THOMAS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 a (new) - paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Before the Facility can be launched, a detailed study shall be undertaken by the Commission to identify the challenges which students may potentially face when taking out a loan for a course of study abroad. In addition, the Commission shall undertake a study and a risk analysis within the framework of the Facility to study the impact that taking out a loan may have on a student's choice of study subject, country of destination and career perspectives, on levels of debt amongst students, on the possibility of a brain drain between the countries where student mobility could take place and on the possible consequences which the Facility may have on the financing of higher education.

2012/10/11
Committee: CULT

2011/0371(COD)

Katarína ROTH NEVEĎALOVÁ, Chrysoula PALIADELI, Silvia COSTA, Petra KAMMEREVERT, Luigi BERLINGUER, Isabelle THOMAS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 a (new) - paragraph 1 c (new)

1c. The Commission shall administer the funding of the Facility which shall be delivered through a trustee with a mandate to implement it pursuant to fiduciary agreements setting out the detailed rules and requirements governing the implementation of the financial instrument relating thereto and the respective obligations of the parties in line with the provisions laid down in this Regulation. The financial instrument shall comply with the provisions regarding financial instruments laid down in the Financial Regulation and in the delegated act replacing the Implementing Rules. In accordance with Article 18(2) of the Financial Regulation, revenues and repayments generated by the guarantees shall be assigned to the financial instrument. That financial instrument, which shall take into account students´ and market needs as well as take-up, the excessive debt risk, the Facility's social and economic impacts on beneficiaries and their social background, education and training, shall be subject to the monitoring and evaluation provided for in Article 15(2) of this Regulation. Member States and stakeholders shall be consulted at all stages throughout the establishment, implementation and evaluation of the financial instrument.

2012/10/11
Committee: CULT

2011/0371(COD)

Katarína ROTH NEVEĎALOVÁ, Chrysoula PALIADELI, Silvia COSTA, Petra KAMMEREVERT, Luigi BERLINGUER, Isabelle THOMAS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 a (new) - paragraph 1 d (new)

1d. The provisions of the Financial Regulation governing the implementation of the Facility shall lay down special rules regarding full income contingent repayment condition, permitting the students concerned to defer repayment of the loan until such time as they reach a level of income that exceeds the average salary in their country of residence.

2012/10/11
Committee: CULT

2011/0371(COD)

Katarína ROTH NEVEĎALOVÁ, Chrysoula PALIADELI, Silvia COSTA, Petra KAMMEREVERT, Luigi BERLINGUER, Isabelle THOMAS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 a (new) - paragraph 1 e (new)

1e. A maximum rate of interest for student loans granted pursuant to the Facility, not exceeding the average rate of inflation in the Member States during the previous calendar year, shall be set. If the financial intermediaries concerned exceed the rate of interest thus set, the Commission shall back up any interest payable in excess of that rate.

2012/10/11
Committee: CULT

2011/0359(COD)

Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Luigi BERLINGUER, Bernhard RAPKAY, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(ba) Member States may exempt public interest entities which have not issued transferable securities admitted to trading on a regulated market within the meaning of point 14 of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC and their statutory auditor(s) or audit firm(s) from one or more of the requirements of this regulation.

2012/11/09
Committee: JURI

2011/0359(COD)

Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Luigi BERLINGUER, Bernhard RAPKAY, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)

(1a) Where a cooperative within the meaning of Article 2(14) of Directive 2006/43/EC, a savings bank or a similar entity as referred to in Article 45 of Directive 86/635/EEC, a subsidiary or a legal successor of a cooperative, a savings bank or a similar entity as referred to in Article 45 of Directive 86/635/EEC is required or permitted under national provisions to be a member of a non-profit- making auditing entity, an objective, reasonable and informed party would not conclude that the membership-based relationship compromises the statutory auditor's independence, provided that when such an auditing entity is conducting a statutory audit of one of its members, the principles of independence laid down in this Chapter are applied to the auditors carrying out the audit and those persons who may be in a position to exert influence on the statutory audit.

2012/11/09
Committee: JURI

2011/0359(COD)

Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Luigi BERLINGUER, Bernhard RAPKAY, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Where Article 37 (2) of Directive 2006/43/EC applies paragraph 2 and 3 of this Article shall not apply.

2012/11/09
Committee: JURI

2011/0359(COD)

Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Luigi BERLINGUER, Bernhard RAPKAY, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

For the purposes of the application of Article 37 (1) of Directive 2006/43/EC, for the appointment of statutory auditors or audit firms by public-interest entities, the conditions set out in paragraphs 2 to 56 of this Article shall apply.

2012/11/09
Committee: JURI

2011/0359(COD)

Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Luigi BERLINGUER, Bernhard RAPKAY, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2

Where Article 37(2) of Directive 2006/43/EC applies, the public-interest entity shall only inform the competent authority of the use of the alternative systems or modalities referred to in that Article; in this case paragraphs 2 to 6 of this Article shall not apply.

2012/11/09
Committee: JURI

2011/0359(COD)

Antonio MASIP HIDALGO, Luigi BERLINGUER, Bernhard RAPKAY, Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. For the purposes of the application of Article 37 (1) of Directive 2006/43/EC, for the appointment of statutory auditors or audit firms by public-interest entities, the conditions set out in paragraphs 2 to 7 shall apply. Where Article 37 (2) of Directive 2006/43/EC applies paragraphs 2 to 4 of this Article shall not apply.

2012/11/09
Committee: JURI

2011/0136(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 4

(4) The exclusive rights for authors of reproduction and of making available to the public of their works, as harmonised under Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, require the consent of the author prior to the digitisation and making available of a work and concern specific acts of reproduction made by publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments or museums, or by archives, which are not for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage, as referred to in Article 5(2)(c) of Directive 2001/29/EC.

2011/10/28
Committee: JURI

2011/0136(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18

(18) Contractual arrangements may play a role in fostering the digitisation of European cultural heritage, it being understood that libraries, educational establishments, museums or archives, audio and film heritage institutions may, with a view to undertake the uses permitted under this Directive, conclude agreements with commercial partners for the digitisation and making available of orphan works. These agreements may include financial contributions by such partners.

2011/10/28
Committee: JURI

2011/0136(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 20

(20) This Directive should ~~be without prejudice to existing~~encourage arrangements in the Member States concerning the management of rights ~~such as~~based on compulsory licenses or extended collective licences.

2011/10/28
Committee: JURI

2011/0136(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1

1. This Directive concerns certain uses of orphan works undertaken by publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments or museums as well as by archives, audio and film heritage institutions and public service broadcasting organizations.

2011/10/28
Committee: JURI

2011/0136(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point 3

(3) Cinematographic, audio or audiovisual works produced by public service broadcasting organisations ~~before the 31 December 2002~~ and contained in their archives.

2011/10/28
Committee: JURI

2011/0136(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1

1. For the purposes of establishing whether a work is an orphan work, the organisations referred to in Article 1(1) shall ensure that a diligent search is carried out ~~for each work,~~ by consulting the appropriate sources for the category of works in question.

2011/10/28
Committee: JURI

2011/0136(COD)

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2

2. The sources that are appropriate for each category of works shall be determined by each Member State, in consultation with rightholders and users, and include, the sources listed in the Annex, provided these sources are publicly accessible online.

2011/10/28
Committee: JURI

2011/0130(COD)