Procedure completed
2011/2013(INI) Policy options for progress towards a European contract law for consumers and businesses
Lead committee dossier: JURI/7/04633
Legal Basis RoP 052
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opinion | ECON | PIETIKÄINEN Sirpa (PPE) | |
| Opinion | IMCO | MAYER Hans-Peter (PPE) | |
| Lead | JURI | WALLIS Diana (ALDE) |
Legal Basis RoP 052
Subjects
Activites
-
2011/06/08
Results of vote in Parliament
- Results of vote in Parliament
-
T7-0262/2011
summary
The European Parliament adopted, by 521 votes to 145 with 8 abstentions a resolution welcoming the open debate on Green Paper from the Commission on policy options for progress towards a European Contract Law for consumers and businesses. Members note that in the wake of the global financial crisis, it appears more important than ever to provide a coherent European contract law regime in order to realise the full potential of the internal market, and thus help meet our Europe 2020 goals. Accordingly, the resolution supports action to address the range of barriers faced by those who wish to enter into cross-border transactions in the Internal Market and considers that, along with other measures, the European Contract Law project could be useful for realising the full potential of the internal market, entailing substantial economic and employment benefits. It highlights the economic importance of SMEs and craft manufacturing businesses in the European economy, noting that it is clear that the application of foreign (consumer) law to cross-border transactions under the Rome-I Regulation has been seen to entail considerable transaction costs particularly for SMEs, which, in the UK alone have been estimated at EUR 15 000 per business and per Member State. Members insist on the need to ensure that the 'think small first' principle promoted by the 'Small Business Act' is well implemented and considered as a priority in the debate over EU initiatives related to contract law. Legal nature of the instrument of European Contract Law: Members favour the option of setting up an optional instrument (OI) by means of a regulation. After clarification of the legal basis, they believe that such an OI could be complemented by a ‘toolbox’ that could be endorsed by means of an interinstitutional agreement. They look forward to the publication of the results of the Expert Group on a Common Frame of Reference in the area of European contract law, in order to clarify the scope and the content of the OI; and they call for the creation of "European standard contracts models", translated in all EU languages, linked to an Alternative Dispute Resolution (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. The resolution makes the following points:only by using the legal form of a Regulation can the necessary clarity and legal certainty be provided;a ‘toolbox’ could possibly be put into practice step-by-step, starting as a Commission tool, and being converted, once agreed between the institutions, into a tool for the Union legislator; all parties, be it in B2B or B2C transactions, should be free to choose or not to choose the OI as an alternative to national or international law (opt-in) and therefore the Commission needs to clarify the intended relationship of an OI with the Rome -I-Regulation and international conventions including the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG); an OI would generate European added value, in particular by ensuring legal certainty through the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, providing at a stroke the potential to surmount both legal and linguistic barriers, as an OI would naturally be available in all EU languages; the Commission must clarify the advantages of an OI for both consumers and businesses and also 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. Scope of application of the instrument: Parliament believes that both business-to-business and business-to-consumer contracts should be covered. The OI must offer a very high level of consumer protection, in order to compensate consumers for the protection that they would normally enjoy under their national law. It believes that the level of consumer protection should be higher than the minimum protection provided by the Consumer Acquis and cover national mandatory rules as satisfactory solutions must be found to problems of private international law. This high level of consumer protection is also in the interests of businesses as they will only be able to reap the benefits of the OI if consumers of all Member States are confident that choosing the OI will not deprive them of protection. Parliament believes that the OI should be available as an opt-in in cross-border situations in the first instance and that guarantees are needed that Member States will be able to prevent any misuse of the OI in non-genuine cross-border scenarios. It further considers that the effects of a domestic opt-in on national bodies of contract law merit specific analysis. Members state that they see 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. Insurance contracts should also be included within the scope of the OI. However, Members urge caution with regards to the inclusion of financial services from any contract law instrument proposed at this stage and call on the Commission to establish a dedicated intra-service expert group for any future preparatory work on financial services to ensure that any future instrument takes into account the possible specific characteristics of the financial services sector and any related initiatives led by other parts of the Commission, and to involve the European Parliament at an early stage. Application of a European contract law instrument in practice: Parliament considers that the consumers and SMEs must be granted real benefits from an OI, and that it should be drawn up in a simple, clear and balanced manner which makes it simple and attractive to use for all parties. It recalls that further work on cross-border ADR remains a priority, but emphasises that, if the parties use one body of law provided by an OI, ADR will be further facilitated. The commission is asked to consider synergies when putting forward a proposal. Parliament also a direct linkage between the OI and the European Order for Payment Procedure and the European Small Claims Procedure. It urges the Commission to carry out, in collaboration with Member States, quality testing and checks to ascertain whether the proposed instruments of European Contract Law are user-friendly, fully integrating citizens' concerns, providing added value for consumers and business, strengthening the Single Market and facilitating cross-border commerce.Stakeholder involvement, impact assessment: Members emphasise 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. They also recall the need for a comprehensive and broad impact assessment, analysing different policy options, including that of not taking Union action, and focusing on practical issues, such as the potential consequences for SMEs and consumers, possible effects on unfair competition in the Internal Market and pinpointing the impact of each of those solutions on both the Community acquisand on national legal systems. Members insist that Parliament should be fully consulted and involved in the framework of the ordinary legislative procedure with regard to any future OI to be submitted by the European Commission and that any OI proposed be subject to scrutiny and amendment under that procedure.
- 2011/06/06 Debate in Parliament
- 2011/04/18 Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
-
2011/04/12
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
-
2011/01/20
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
-
2010/07/01
Non-legislative basic document published
-
COM(2010)0348
summary
PURPOSE: to launch a public consultation on policy options for progress towards a European Contract Law for consumers and businesses (Green Paper).BACKGROUND: the internal market is built on a multitude of contracts governed by different national contract laws. Differences between national contract laws may entail additional transaction costs and legal uncertainty for businesses and lead to a lack of consumer confidence in the internal market. Divergences in contract law rules may require businesses to adapt their contractual terms. Partly for these reasons, consumers and businesses, in particular small and medium enterprises (SMEs) having limited resources may be reluctant to engage in cross-border transactions. The Europe 2020 strategy recognises the need to make it easier and less costly for businesses and consumers to conclude contracts with partners in other EU countries, notably by offering harmonised solutions for consumer contracts, EU model contract clauses and by making progress towards an optional European Contract Law. The Digital Agenda for Europe refers to an optional contract law instrument to overcome the fragmentation of contract law, in particular as regards the on-line environment. The idea of a European Contract Law has also received the support of the European Parliament, expressed in its resolution of 25 November on the Commission’s Communication regarding the Stockholm Programme. The Commission has set up an Expert Group to study the feasibility of a user-friendly instrument of European Contract Law, capable of benefiting consumers and businesses which, at the same time, would provide for legal certainty. The Group will assist the Commission in selecting those parts of the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) which are directly or indirectly related to contract law, and in restructuring, revising and supplementing the selected provisions. The DCFR covers principles, definitions and model rules of civil law, including contract and tort law. It contains provisions for both commercial and consumer contracts.CONTENT: the purpose of this Green Paper is to set out the options on how to strengthen the internal market by making progress in the area of European Contract Law, and launch a public consultation on them. Depending on the evaluation of the results of the consultation, the Commission could propose further action by 2012. Any legislative proposal will be accompanied by an appropriate impact assessment. An instrument of European Contract Law should respond to the problems of diverging contract laws, without introducing additional burdens or complications for consumers or businesses. In addition it should ensure a high level of consumer protection. It should be comprehensive and self-standing, in the sense that references to national laws or international instruments should be reduced as much as possible. An instrument of European Contract Law could range from a non-binding instrument, aiming at improving the consistency and quality of EU legislation, to a binding instrument which would set out an alternative to the existing plurality of national contract law regimes, by providing a single set of contract law rules. As a general observation, a Union instrument would be made available in all official languages. This would benefit all stakeholders involved, legislators seeking guidance, judges applying rules and parties negotiating the terms of their contract. The Green Paper proposes different options: Option 1: publication of the results of the Expert Group: the outcome of the work of the Expert Group could be made easily available, by immediate publication on the website of the Commission, without any endorsement at Union level. This could be used by European and national legislators as a source of inspiration when drafting legislation and by contractual parties when drafting their standard terms and conditions. However, divergences in contract law would not be significantly reduced by a text which has no formal authority or status for courts and legislators.Option 2: an official "toolbox" for the legislator: the Commission could adopt an act (e.g. a Communication or Commission Decision) on European Contract Law to be used as a reference tool by the Commission to ensure the coherence and quality of legislation. A "toolbox" in European Contract Law could also be the object of an interinstitutional agreement between the Commission, Parliament and Council to make consistent reference to its provisions when drafting and negotiating legislative proposals bearing on European Contract Law. The disadvantage of any "toolbox" is that it would not remove divergences in law and could not ensure a convergent application and interpretation of Union contract law by the courts. Option 3: Commission Recommendation on European Contract Law: an instrument of European Contract Law could be attached to a Commission Recommendation addressed to the Member States, encouraging them to incorporate the instrument into their national laws. Such a Recommendation would allow the Member States to gradually adopt the instrument into their national laws on a voluntary basis. Furthermore, the Court of Justice of the EU would have jurisdiction to interpret the provisions of the Recommendation. Such a solution bears the risk of an incoherent and incomplete approach between the Member States. Option 4: Regulation setting up an optional instrument of European Contract Law: this would be conceived as a "2nd Regime" in each Member State, thus providing parties with an option between two regimes of domestic contract law. It would provide parties, primarily those wishing to operate in the internal market, with an alternative set of rules. The instrument could be applicable in cross-border contracts only, or in both cross-border and domestic contracts. An optional instrument could constitute an alternative to full harmonisation of national laws, by offering a proportionate solution to internal market barriers stemming from diverging national contract laws.On the other hand, a European optional instrument might be criticised for complicating the legal environment. Option 5: Directive on European Contract Law: this could harmonise national contract law on the basis of minimum common standards. Member States would be able to retain more protective rules, subject to compliance with the Treaty. Such a Directive could decrease legal divergences, by achieving a degree of convergence between national contract laws. However, harmonisation through directives based on minimum harmonisation would not necessarily lead to uniform implementation and interpretation of the rules. Option 6: Regulation establishing a European Contract Law: such a Regulation could replace the diversity of national laws with a uniform European set of rules, including mandatory rules affording a high level of protection for the weaker party. The Regulation could replace national laws in cross-border transactions only, or it could replace national laws in both cross-border and domestic contracts. This solution would remove legal fragmentation in the field of contract law and lead to a uniform application and interpretation of the Regulation's provisions. However, it could raise sensitive issues of subsidiarity and proportionality. Option 7: Regulation establishing a European Civil Code: this solution goes one step further than the Regulation establishing a European Contract Law, in the sense that it would cover not only contract law, but also other types of obligations (e.g. tort law and benevolent intervention). Such an instrument would reduce even further the need to fall back onto national provisions.However, it is yet to be established to what extent an extensive instrument such as a European Civil Code could be justified on grounds of subsidiarity.
- DG {'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/internal_market/', 'title': 'Internal Market and Services'}, BARNIER Michel
-
COM(2010)0348
summary
Documents
- Non-legislative basic document published: COM(2010)0348
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A7-0164/2011
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T7-0262/2011
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 242 |
2011/2013(INI)
2011/02/21
ECON
22 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Stresses that this proposal is not intended to cover major contracts nor financial services in general which require specialist consideration.
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3 a. Calls on the Commission to closely link the work being done on the anticipated legislative proposal on EU- wide Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) system to the preparatory work carried out in the field of European contract law so as to ensure the possible future contract law tool provides for appropriate access to ADR;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls on the Commission to ensure close alignment of the proposed Consumer Rights Directive and
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls on the Commission to ensure close alignment of the proposed Consumer Rights Directive and
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls on the Commission to ensure close alignment of the proposed Consumer Rights Directive and the European Contract Law instrument, by waiting until the outcome of the negotiations on the Consumer Rights Directive, so as to clarify the relationship between the two measures in such a way that in case of conflict the consumer rights legislation takes precedence, and a high level of consumer protection is ensured
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Calls on the Commission to ensure close alignment of the proposed Consumer Rights Directive and the European Contract Law instrument so as to clarify the relationship between the two measures in such a way that in case of conflict the consumer rights legislation takes precedence, and a high level of consumer protection is ensured; for example the linguistic protection of citizens speaking any of the official languages in Member States.
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 (new) nevertheless observes that the parties to the contract choose to opt-in in order to be successful and be chosen by consumers this proposal would need to provide a very high level of consumer protection, remaining coherent with the Consumer Rights Directive and in some areas offering even greater protection.
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Invites the Commission to study the possibility of including financial services, particularly insurance products, within the general provisions of the Contract Law instrument;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Considers that the European Contract Law project
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Invites the Commission to study the possibility of including financial services within the general provisions of the Contract Law instrument, with particular focus on loan agreements, either commercial, personal and mortgage;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Calls on the Commission to establish an intra-service expert group to ensure that these general provisions take into account the possible specific characteristics of the financial services sector.
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6 a. Insists that a comprehensive Impact Assessment is carried out which details the potential cost of implementation as well as potential cost benefits to participants in the single market in the various sectors.
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Considers that EU-level harmonisation of contract law practices
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Considers that EU-level harmonisation of contract law practices
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Considers that EU-level harmonisation of contract law practices would be more efficient in ensuring convergence and a more level playing field, but that, given the challenges of harmonising national legal systems, an optional instrument
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Considers that EU-level harmonisation of contract law practices would be more efficient in ensuring convergence and a more level playing field, but that, given the challenges of harmonising
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 – point a (new) (a) Considers that other policy options should be assessed as well in order to establish which is the appropriate tool according to the needs of a single market at the service of consumers and businesses;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 – point b (new) (b) The impact assessment should especially investigate whether the harmonization of European contract law would really bring added value to businesses, in particular SMEs , and to look into the costs harmonization would incur;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Considers that such an instrument should be based on the Lex Generalis principle of
source: PE-458.830
2011/03/02
IMCO
89 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Recital A A.
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Recital B B. whereas a
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Recital B B. whereas a common European Contract Law w
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Recital C C. whereas in its Green Paper1 the Commission sets out a range of options for a European contract law instrument which could
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Recital C C. whereas in its Green Paper
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Recital C C. whereas in its Green Paper1 the Commission sets out a range of options for a European contract law instrument which could help
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Recital D D. whereas the negotiations on the consumer protection directive2 illustrated just how difficult it is to fully harmonise con
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Recital D D. whereas the negotiations on the consumer protection directive
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Recital D D. whereas the negotiations on the
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Recital D D. whereas the negotiations on the consumer
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Recital D D
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Recital A A.
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Recital E E. whereas the end product
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Recital E E. whereas the end product, a European Contract Law, must be properly thought through and subjected to an in-depth impact assessment prior to being amended, if necessary, and formally adopted by the European legislator if this process is to enjoy efficiency as well as political legitimacy and support,
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Recital E E. whereas
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Recital E E. whereas the end product, a European Contract Law, must be properly thought through
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the open debate on the Green
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Stresses that a thorough impact assessment, which investigates all the policy options in the Green paper equally, including the possibility of taking no action, must be scrutinised in depth by the European Parliament and all associated committees before a recommendation is finally chosen and before work on the policy option begins;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Urges the Commission to undertake a thorough impact assessment of the option deemed most appropriate; this impact assessment should include, inter alia, identification of the most suitable legal basis, social and economic impacts, coherence with existing EU, international and private law, possible systems of arbitration in cases of conflict regarding the choice and application of the optional instrument between consumers and businesses, and the level of added value for consumers and businesses of such an optional instrument; that this impact assessment should be completed and concerns addressed before work commences on the policy option
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Highlights the economic importance of SMEs and craft manufacturing businesses in the European economy; insists, therefore, on the need to ensure that the 'think small first' principle promoted by the 'Small Business Act' is well implemented and considered as a priority in the debate over EU initiatives related to contract law;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Stresses that a thorough impact assessment, which investigates all the policy options in the Green paper equally, including the possibility of taking no action, must be scrutinised in depth by the European Parliament and all associated committees before a recommendation is finally chosen and before work on the policy option begins;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Recital A A. whereas
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Takes the view that the development of
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Takes the view that the development of an optional European Contract Law or a further developed "toolbox” could do much to improve the functioning of the
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Takes the view that the development of an optional
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Takes the view that the
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Takes the view that the development of a
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Takes the view that the d
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Urges the Commission in collaboration with Member States to carry out quality testing and checks to ascertain whether the proposed instruments of European contract law are user-friendly, fully integrating citizens concerns, providing in the process added value for consumers and business, strengthening the single market and facilitating cross border commerce;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Calls on the Commission in relation to the European Contract Law initiative to examine certain difficulties that consumers and business encounter in cross border commerce, especially those related to investments, payment, delivery, language barriers, redress and differences in legal, administrative and cultural traditions;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Recital A A. whereas
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Takes the view that the development of a European Contract Law would constitute
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Takes the view that the development of a European Contract Law should not be supported as it would constitute
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Takes the view that
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Takes the view that a European Contract Law could constitute
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Is convinced that a
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Is convinced that a common European Contract Law would make the internal market more efficient
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Recital A a (new) Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Takes the view that
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Takes the view that it needs to be further considered if Articles 114 and 169 or 352 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union would constitute the appropriate legal basis for an instrument regulating business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-consumer (B2C) contracts;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Takes the view that it needs to be further considered if Articles 114 and 169 or 352 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union would constitute the appropriate legal basis for an instrument regulating business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-consumer (B2C) contracts;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Emphasises the particular importance of facilitating e-commerce in the EU
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Emphasises the particular importance of facilitating e-commerce in the EU, given that this sector is underdeveloped
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Emphasises the particular importance of facilitating e-commerce in the EU, given that this sector is underdeveloped, a
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Recital B Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Emphasises the particular importance of facilitating e-commerce in the EU
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Points out that
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Points out that individual components of consumer contract law are already spread across various sets of European rules, so that it would make sense to consolidate them into a European Contract Law; stresses that, in the field of insurance contract law, preliminary work has already been performed with the Principles of European Insurance Contract Law (PEICL), which should be integrated into a body of European contract law and should be revised and pursued further; points out, further, that these existing sets of rules illustrate the need for a clearly structured, uniform body of law which consumers can readily identify;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Points out that
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Points out that individual components of consumer contract law are already spread across various sets of European rules, s
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Points out that
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Points out that individual components of consumer contract law are already spread across various sets of European rules, so that it would make sense to consolidate them into a European Contract Law by means of a regulation on an optional instrument; points
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Takes the view that the
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Takes the view that the regulatory focus of a European Contract Law should be the principles underpinning contracts: in the case of consumer contracts, the focus should be on the law governing sales and, where appropriate, service and works contracts and on insurance contract law, and the general provisions should contain rules on the definition of a contract, pre- contractual obligations, the procedures for concluding contracts, representation, grounds of nullity, the
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Recital B Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Takes the view that the regulatory focus of a European Contract Law should be the principles underpinning contracts: in the case of consumer contracts, the focus should be on the law governing sales and, where appropriate, service and works contracts and th
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Takes the view that the regulatory focus of a potential European Contract Law initiative should be the principles underpinning contracts: in the case of consumer contracts, the focus should be on the law governing sales and, where appropriate, service and works contracts and th
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Taking into account the special nature of the different contracts and leading national and international principles of contract law; calls on the Commission to emphasize different aspects while considering B2C and B2B contracts; taking into account the fundamental principle of a high degree of consumer protection, further believes that existing branch practices and the principle of contractual freedom has to be preserved regarding B2B contracts;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Is convinced that the
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Is convinced that
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Is convinced that
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Is convinced that
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Maintains that consumers are not being given the necessary information relating to the availability and enforcement of their contractual rights especially in cross-border commerce; Calls on the Commission to consolidate an easily accessible user-friendly information mechanism which will clearly explain how contract law works among Member States and more importantly what benefits it can offer to citizens, consumers and SMEs;
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Points out that consumers must give their explicit consent to the application of the
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Recital B B. whereas a
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Points out that consumers must
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Points out that for consumers
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Points out that, if an optional European system is introduced, consumers must receive clear information to allow them to understand their rights and make an informed decision as to whether they want to conclude a contract on this alternative basis; points out furthermore that consumers must give their explicit consent to the application of the European law and that the relevant provisions must not be introduced implicitly, for example by means of standard form contracts;
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 12 12. Takes the view that
Amendment 84 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 12 12. Takes the view that any initiative on European Contract Law in the B2C sphere must establish a very high level of consumer protection and that, should Member States nevertheless guarantee a higher level of protection,
Amendment 85 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 12 12. Takes the view that any initiative on European Contract Law in the B2C sphere must establish a very high level of consumer protection and that, should Member States nevertheless guarantee a higher level of protection,
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 13 13. Emphasises that the supreme test of the effectiveness of any
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 13 13. Emphasises that the supreme test of the effectiveness of any final instrument is the guarantee of the protection of consumers and the well-functioning of the internal market itself; invites the Commission to consider how best to encourage businessmen and consumers to make use of the new law voluntarily; emphasises the need to include rules on the provision of appropriate information concerning its existence and the way it works to all potential interested parties and stakeholders (including national courts).
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 13 13. Emphasises that although the supreme test of the effectiveness of any final instrument is the internal market itself
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 13 a (new) 13 a. Calls on the Commission to carry out a proper impact assessment on the different European Contract Law instruments to better clarify and examine the connection with national contract laws, domestic transactions, international instruments and standards and other European policy options and measures, such as the Consumer Rights Directive, the Services Directive; Furthermore Commission should scrutinize the role and importance which a future European Contract Law instrument will have with regard to international trade and relations with third countries;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Recital B B. whereas a common European Contract Law would benefit consumers and in particular
source: PE-460.655
2011/03/04
JURI
131 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas the application of foreign
Amendment 100 #
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 and based on the Principles of European Insurance Contract Law (PEICL)1, 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
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Believes that the OI should be coherent with the existing acquis in contract law;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Notes that according to the re
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Notes that according to the re
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Believes that
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Believes that whilst an OI will have the effect of providing a single body of law, there will still be a need
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Believes that
Amendment 11 #
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
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Believes that whilst an OI will have the effect of providing a single body of law, there will still be a need to seek provision of standard terms and conditions of trade which can be produced in a simple and comprehensible form, available off-the- shelf for SMEs and with some form of trust mark system to ensure consumer confidence; notes that standard contract terms and conditions based upon an OI would offer greater legal certainty than EU-wide standard terms based upon national laws which would increase the possibility for differing national interpretations;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Recalls that further work on cross- border alternative dispute resolution (ADR), in particular for SMEs and consumers, remains a priority
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13.
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Recalls that further work on cross- border alternative dispute resolution (ADR), in particular for SMEs and consumers, remains a priority
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Recalls that further work on cross- border alternative dispute resolution (ADR), 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; notes that the UNCITRAL Working Group on Online Dispute Resolution has also shown interest in an OI as a means to facilitate ADR1 and therefore recommends that the Commission follows developments within the other international bodies;
Amendment 115 #
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;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Suggests that
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Suggests that
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Suggests that lack of confidence in cross-border redress systems could be further tackled by a direct linkage between the OI and the European Order for Payment Procedure and the European Small Claims Procedure; takes the view that an electronic letter before action should be created to assist companies in protecting their rights, in particular in the field of intellectual property and the European small claims procedure;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas the application of foreign (consumer) law to cross-border transactions under the Rome-I
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 Amendment 121 #
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;
Amendment 122 #
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
Amendment 123 #
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
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;
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;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Appreciates that both expert and stakeholder groups already have a varied geographical and sectoral background; believes that stakeholder contributions will become even more important once the
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Appreciates that both expert and stakeholder groups already have a varied geographical and sectoral background; believes that stakeholder contributions will become even more important once the consultation phase is over and if the legislative procedure as such, which w
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Recalls, in accordance with Better Lawmaking principles, the need for a comprehensive and broad impact assessment, analysing different policy options, including that of not taking Union action, and focusing on practical issues; notes the opinion of many stakeholders that while the Commission may have acted according to the letter of the Better Lawmaking initiative, the principles and spirit behind the Better Lawmaking and Smart Regulation programmes have not been evident in the Commission's recent approach towards this issue; looks forward to the European Commission presenting to the European Parliament the results of the consultation and of the impact assessment evaluating fully all the options proposed by the Green Paper;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Recalls, in accordance with Better Lawmaking principles, the need
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas the application of foreign (consumer) law to cross-border transactions under the Rome-I Regulation
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Recalls, in accordance with Better
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 a (new) 18a. Insists that Parliament should be fully consulted and involved in the framework of the ordinary legislative procedure with regard to any future OI to be submitted by the European Commission;
Amendment 14 #
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;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F Amendment 16 #
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 2008
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas such transaction costs are perceived as
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F a (new) Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas the idea of the European contract law initiative,
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);
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas
Amendment 23 #
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 country
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas the
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G a (new) Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G a (new) Ga. whereas the existing evidence does not permit to deduce that diverging national contract law represent a significant barrier to cross-border trade and therefore any measures in this field should be based on clear evidence that such a initiative would make a real difference which cannot be achieved through other less intrusive means,
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G a (new) Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas any steps taken in the area of European contract law must be coherent with the expected Consumer Rights Directive and the Community acquis, and must take into account mandatory national rules,
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas any steps taken in the area of European contract law must be co
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H a (new) Ha. whereas gradual harmonisation does not effectively overcome obstacles in the internal market resulting from diverging national contract laws,
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 con
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;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 Amendment 36 #
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;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Favours the option of setting up an optional instrument (OI) by means of a
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Favours the option of
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Favours the option of 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; stresses, however, that this can only be expected to have a positive impact on the internal market if, as part of a detailed and intensive evaluation process, the impact of the Directive on consumer rights (COM(2008)0614), which is still in the process of being drawn up, is first awaited, considered and finally thoroughly taken into account;
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Favours the option of
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Favours the option of setting up an optional instrument (OI) by means of a regulation; believes that such an OI could be complemented by a ‘toolbox’ that
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Fea
Amendment 44 #
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;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Believes that only by using the legal form of a Regulation can the necessary clarity and legal certainty be provided;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Stresses that a Regulation setting up an optional instrument of European Contract Law would improve the functioning of the internal market because of the direct effect, with benefits for businesses (reduction in costs as a result of obviating the need for conflict-of-law rules), consumers (legal certainty, confidence, high level of consumer protection) and Member States’ judicial systems (no longer necessary to examine foreign laws);
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;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Believes that a ‘toolbox’ could possibly be put into practice step-by-step, starting as a Commission tool, and being converted,
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Believes that a ‘toolbox’ could possibly be put into practice step-by-step, starting as a Commission tool, and being converted, once agreed between the institutions, into a tool for the Union legislator;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas, in the wake of the global financial crisis, it appears more important than ever
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Believes that a ‘toolbox’ could possibly be put into practice step-by-step, starting as a Commission tool, and being converted, once agreed between the institutions,
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Takes the view that by complementing an OI with a ‘toolbox’, clearer information will be available on that EU instrument, helping the parties concerned to better understand their rights and to make informed choices when entering into contracts on the basis of that system, and that the legal framework will be more comprehensible and not overburdensome;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 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;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Considers that a
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Considers that an OI would generate European added value, in particular by ensuring legal certainty through the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, providing at a stroke the potential to surmount both legal and linguistic barriers, as an OI would naturally be available in all EU languages; emphasises that, in order to create a better understanding of the way in which European institutions function, European citizens should have the opportunity to have all kinds of information connected with the optional instrument translated via accessible, easy-to-use online translation tools, so that they can read the desired information in their own language;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Considers that an OI would – within the appropriate limits laid down by the division of powers – generate European added value, in particular by ensuring legal certainty through the
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Believes that all parties, be it in B2B or B2C transactions, should be free to choose or not to choose the OI as an alternative to national or international law (opt-in) and therefore calls on the Commission to clarify the intended relationship of an OI with the Rome I Regulation and international conventions including the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG);
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas, in the wake of the global financial crisis, it appears more important than ever to provide a coherent European contract law regime in order to realise the full potential of the internal market and thus help meet our Europe 2020 goals,
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Sees a compelling practical advantage in the
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Sees a compelling practical advantage in the flexible and voluntary nature of an opt- in instrument; calls, however, on the Commission to
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Sees a
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5.
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;
Amendment 66 #
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;
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;
Amendment 68 #
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;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas
Amendment 70 #
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
Amendment 71 #
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, as mandatory national provisions relating to cross-border transactions, including in the area of consumer law, would be replaced;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Believes that
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Believes that
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Believes that
Amendment 75 #
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
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Believes that both business-to-business
Amendment 77 #
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, as mandatory national provisions, including in the area of consumer law, would be replaced; considers it necessary, therefore, with regard to the introduction of this optional instrument, that there is a uniform set of rules – explaining in clear, comprehensible language what are the rights of consumers and that these will not be compromised, so that consumers have confidence in the optional instrument and, knowing their rights, are in a position to decide whether they wish to conclude a contract on this alternative basis – as well as a description of the relationship to the provisions of the Rome I Regulation, so that this optional instrument has genuine added value;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Points out that the benefits of a uniform European Contract Law must be communicated in a positive way to citizens, if it is to enjoy political legitimacy and support:
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Acknowledges that e-commerce or distance-selling contracts account for an important share of cross-border transactions;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Acknowledges that e-commerce or distance-selling contracts account for an important share of cross-border
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Acknowledges that e-commerce or distance-selling contracts account for an important share of cross-border transactions; believes, however, that an OI should
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Acknowledges that e-commerce or distance-selling contracts account for an important share of cross-border transactions;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Acknowledges that e-commerce or distance-selling contracts account for an important share of cross-border transactions;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D a (new) Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Believes that the scope of a ‘toolbox’ could be quite broad
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Believes that the scope of a ‘toolbox’ could be quite broad
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Believes that the scope of a ‘toolbox’ could be quite broad, whereas any OI should be limited to the core contractual law issues;
Amendment 94 #
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";
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Sees benefits in a
Amendment 96 #
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;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Sees benefits in a
Amendment 98 #
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;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Sees benefits in a
source: PE-460.697
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2015-11-04Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52010DC0348:EN
|
2014-11-09Show (5) Changes
| activities |
|
| committees |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure |
|