2015/2087(INL) | [ParlTrack]

Changes: 2021/12/18procedure.Modified_legal_basis, events, docs.docs.url, events.type, procedure.Other_legal_basis, committees.shadows, 2020/01/19docs.body, committees, events.docs.url, 2019/07/06procedure.Modified_legal_basis, events, procedure.dossier_of_the_committee, activities, committees, procedure.subject, docs, links, other, procedure.legal_basis, commission, 2017/07/07procedure.stage_reached, activities.docs, activities.type, 2017/07/06activities.type, 2017/07/01activities.date, activities

View current state | View Changes for this date

Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage

2015/2087(INL) Limitation periods for traffic accidents
Next event: Debate in plenary scheduled 2017/07/05 more...

Role	Committee	Rapporteur	Shadows
Lead	JURI	SVOBODA Pavel (EPP)	DELVAUX Mady (S&D), DZHAMBAZKI Angel (ECR), CAVADA Jean-Marie (ALDE), MAŠTÁLKA Jiří (GUE/NGL), ANDERSSON Max (Verts/ALE)

Lead committee dossier: JURI/8/03333
Legal Basis RoP 046

Subjects

Links

Activites

2017/07/06 Vote in plenary scheduled
2017/07/05 Debate in plenary scheduled
2017/06/01 Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
- A8-0206/2017 summary
  
  The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the report by Pavel SVOBODA (EPP, CZ) with recommendations to the Commission on limitation periods for traffic accidents (Initiative – Rule 46 of the Rules of Procedure). Limitation periods constitute an important and integral part of Member States’ civil liability regimes which operate in traffic accident cases in that a short limitation period may balance a strict liability rule or generous damages awards. Divergent rules: given the current divergences in relation to limitation rules and the types of problems that are directly related to the disparate national provisions governing transnational personal injury and damage to property cases, Members called for a certain level of harmonisation is the only way to ensure an adequate degree of certainty, predictability and simplicity in the application of Member States’ rules of limitation in cases of cross-border traffic accidents. Legislative proposal requested: Members called on the Commission to submit on the basis of Article 81(2) TFEU, a proposal for an act on limitation periods in respect of personal injury and damage to property in cross-border road traffic accidents. The proposed Directive shall establish a special limitation regime for cross-border cases that would safeguard effective access to justice and facilitate the proper functioning of the internal market, eliminating obstacles to the free movement of citizens throughout the territory of the Member States. Period of limitation: under the proposal, Member States shall ensure that a limitation period of at least four years shall apply to actions relating to compensation for personal injury and damage to property resulting from a cross-border road traffic accident, falling within the Directive. The proposal provides that the running of the general time limit established in the Directive should be suspended as soon as a claim is made to the insurer or the compensation body, to allow the claimant an opportunity to negotiate the settlement of the claim. It also contains provisions on the calculation of periods of time. General information on rules of limitation: Member States shall provide the Commission with up-to-date information on national rules of limitation for compensation claims on damages caused by road accidents. The Commission shall make publicly available this information and in all Union languages.
2017/05/30 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
2015/04/30 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading

Documents

Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A8-0206/2017

Amendments	Dossier
16	2015/2087(INL) 2017/04/18 JURI 16 amendments... Amendment 1 # Daniel BUDA Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas in the Union, limitation rules on claims for damages vary widely between the Member States, so that no two Member States operate exactly the same basic rules of limitation; whereas also the relevant limitation is determined on the basis of various factors, including whether there are related criminal proceedings and whether the claim is considered tortious or contractual; Amendment 10 # Daniel BUDA Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Calls on the Commission to ensure ~~that~~access to general information on Member States’ rules of limitation for claims of compensation for damages in cross-border traffic accidents, ensuring that they become available and are constantly updated on the e-Justice Portal; also calls on the Commission to assess whether it would be possible to recommend uniform limitation periods at European level; Amendment 11 # Daniel BUDA Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Also calls on the Commission to undertake a study on the protection afforded in the Member States to minors and persons with a disability in respect of the running of time for limitation purposes, and on the necessity to set minimum rules at Union level to ensure that such persons do not lose their rights to claim compensation when involved in a cross- border road traffic accident and that they are guaranteed effective access to justice in the European Union; Amendment 12 # Daniel BUDA Motion for a resolution Annex I – part A – point 1 1. In the European Union, enforcement of law before courts remains largely the matter of national procedural rules and practice. National courts are also Union courts. It is therefore for the proceedings before them to ensure fairness, justice and efficiency as well as effective application of Union law, guaranteeing that European citizens’ rights are protected throughout the European Union. Amendment 13 # Daniel BUDA Motion for a resolution Annex I – part B – recital 5 (5) The requirement of legal certainty and the need to do justice in individual cases are essential elements of an area of justice. Common limitation periods increasing legal certainty, ensuring that disputes are ended and contributing to an effective enforcement regime are therefore necessary to guarantee the application of that principle. Amendment 14 # Daniel BUDA Motion for a resolution Annex I – part B – recital 10 (10) In the field of road traffic accidents, it can be very difficult for a visiting victim to get basic information about the accident from the foreign jurisdiction within a relatively short time, such as the identity of the defendant and liabilities potentially involved. It may also take considerable time to identify which claims representative or insurer should deal with the case, to collect evidence about the accident and to have any necessary documents translated. Amendment 15 # Daniel BUDA Motion for a resolution Annex I – part B – recital 11 (11) It is not uncommon in cross-border road traffic cases for the claimant to be very close to the expiration of a time limit before negotiations can be started with the defendant. This happens most often when the overall time limit is particularly short or when there is ambiguity about the way in which the limitation period can be suspended or interrupted. The gathering of information about an accident, which occurred in a country foreign to the claimant can take considerable time. Therefore, the running of the general time limit established in the Directive should be suspended as soon as a claim is made to the insurer or the compensation body, to allow the claimant an opportunity to negotiate the settlement of the claim. Amendment 16 # Daniel BUDA Motion for a resolution Annex I – part B – recital 14 (14) This Directive seeks to promote the fundamental rights, and takes into account the principles, and values recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and at the same time seeks to achieve the Union objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice. Amendment 2 # Daniel BUDA Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas national limitation systems are thus highly complex and it can often be challenging to understand which is the applicable overall limitation, when and how limitations begin to run and how these are suspended, interrupted or extended; Amendment 3 # Daniel BUDA Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas unfamiliarity with foreign rules of limitation can lead to the loss of the right to make an otherwise valid claim, or to obstacles for the victims with regard to accessing justice, in the form of additional costs and delays; Amendment 4 # Daniel BUDA Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas in the area of cross-border traffic accidents, the only cause of action already harmonised at Union level is the one established in Article 18 of the Motor Insurance Directive, enabling victims to seek compensation in their own country of residence by way of a claim for compensation brought directly against a relevant insurance undertaking or against a relevant compensation body against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles10; __________________ 10See also: judgment of 13 December 2007, FBTO Schadeverzekeringen NV v Jack Odenbreit, C-463/06, ECLI:EU:C:2007:792. Amendment 5 # Daniel BUDA Motion for a resolution Recital F a (new) Fa. whereas limitation periods for claims are essential to ensuring legal certainty and the finality of disputes; whereas, however, the defendant’s rights to legal certainty and finality of disputes should be balanced with the claimant’s fundamental rights to access to justice and to an effective remedy, and unnecessarily short limitation periods could obstruct effective access to justice across the EU; Amendment 6 # Gilles LEBRETON, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas, given the current divergences in relation to limitation rules and the types of problems that are directly related to the disparate national provisions governing trans-national personal injury and damage to property cases, a certain level of harmonisation ~~is the only way~~helps to ensure an adequate degree of certainty, predictability and simplicity in the application of Member States’ rules of limitation in cases of cross-border traffic accidents; Amendment 7 # Evelyn REGNER Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Notes however, that the continued existence in the Union of two parallel regimes governing the law applicable in traffic accident cases depending on the country where the claim is brought, namely either the 1971 Hague Traffic Accident Convention or the Rome II Regulation, which combined with the choice of forum possibilities under the Brussels I recast Regulation, creates legal uncertainty and complexity as well as potential opportunities for inappropriate forum shopping; stresses that the weaker party should always be protected by more favourable jurisdiction rules; Amendment 8 # Emil RADEV Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4а. Notes that the existence of common minimum rules in respect of limitation periods in cross-border disputes is essential to ensuring that effective legal means are available for the protection of victims of cross-border road traffic accidents and to guaranteeing legal certainty; Amendment 9 # Emil RADEV Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5а. Highlights that the significant difference between Member States’ rules in respect of limitation periods for cross- border road traffic accidents creates further obstacles for victims when filing claims for compensation for personal injury and damage to property suffered in Member States other than their own; source: 603.043

Amendments

Dossier

2015/2087(INL)

2017/04/18 JURI 16 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Daniel BUDA

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas in the Union, limitation rules on claims for damages vary widely between the Member States, so that no two Member States operate exactly the same basic rules of limitation; whereas also the relevant limitation is determined on the basis of various factors, including whether there are related criminal proceedings and whether the claim is considered tortious or contractual;

Amendment 10 #

Daniel BUDA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission to ensure ~~that~~access to general information on Member States’ rules of limitation for claims of compensation for damages in cross-border traffic accidents, ensuring that they become available and are constantly updated on the e-Justice Portal; also calls on the Commission to assess whether it would be possible to recommend uniform limitation periods at European level;

Amendment 11 #

Daniel BUDA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Also calls on the Commission to undertake a study on the protection afforded in the Member States to minors and persons with a disability in respect of the running of time for limitation purposes, and on the necessity to set minimum rules at Union level to ensure that such persons do not lose their rights to claim compensation when involved in a cross- border road traffic accident and that they are guaranteed effective access to justice in the European Union;

Amendment 12 #

Daniel BUDA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part A – point 1

1. In the European Union, enforcement of law before courts remains largely the matter of national procedural rules and practice. National courts are also Union courts. It is therefore for the proceedings before them to ensure fairness, justice and efficiency as well as effective application of Union law, guaranteeing that European citizens’ rights are protected throughout the European Union.

Amendment 13 #

Daniel BUDA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 5

(5) The requirement of legal certainty and the need to do justice in individual cases are essential elements of an area of justice. Common limitation periods increasing legal certainty, ensuring that disputes are ended and contributing to an effective enforcement regime are therefore necessary to guarantee the application of that principle.

Amendment 14 #

Daniel BUDA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 10

(10) In the field of road traffic accidents, it can be very difficult for a visiting victim to get basic information about the accident from the foreign jurisdiction within a relatively short time, such as the identity of the defendant and liabilities potentially involved. It may also take considerable time to identify which claims representative or insurer should deal with the case, to collect evidence about the accident and to have any necessary documents translated.

Amendment 15 #

Daniel BUDA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 11

(11) It is not uncommon in cross-border road traffic cases for the claimant to be very close to the expiration of a time limit before negotiations can be started with the defendant. This happens most often when the overall time limit is particularly short or when there is ambiguity about the way in which the limitation period can be suspended or interrupted. The gathering of information about an accident, which occurred in a country foreign to the claimant can take considerable time. Therefore, the running of the general time limit established in the Directive should be suspended as soon as a claim is made to the insurer or the compensation body, to allow the claimant an opportunity to negotiate the settlement of the claim.

Amendment 16 #

Daniel BUDA

Motion for a resolution
Annex I – part B – recital 14

(14) This Directive seeks to promote the fundamental rights, and takes into account the principles, and values recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and at the same time seeks to achieve the Union objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice.

Amendment 2 #

Daniel BUDA

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas national limitation systems are thus highly complex and it can often be challenging to understand which is the applicable overall limitation, when and how limitations begin to run and how these are suspended, interrupted or extended;

Amendment 3 #

Daniel BUDA

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas unfamiliarity with foreign rules of limitation can lead to the loss of the right to make an otherwise valid claim, or to obstacles for the victims with regard to accessing justice, in the form of additional costs and delays;

Amendment 4 #

Daniel BUDA

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas in the area of cross-border traffic accidents, the only cause of action already harmonised at Union level is the one established in Article 18 of the Motor Insurance Directive, enabling victims to seek compensation in their own country of residence by way of a claim for compensation brought directly against a relevant insurance undertaking or against a relevant compensation body against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles10; __________________ 10See also: judgment of 13 December 2007, FBTO Schadeverzekeringen NV v Jack Odenbreit, C-463/06, ECLI:EU:C:2007:792.

Amendment 5 #

Daniel BUDA

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

Fa. whereas limitation periods for claims are essential to ensuring legal certainty and the finality of disputes; whereas, however, the defendant’s rights to legal certainty and finality of disputes should be balanced with the claimant’s fundamental rights to access to justice and to an effective remedy, and unnecessarily short limitation periods could obstruct effective access to justice across the EU;

Amendment 6 #

Gilles LEBRETON, Marie-Christine BOUTONNET

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas, given the current divergences in relation to limitation rules and the types of problems that are directly related to the disparate national provisions governing trans-national personal injury and damage to property cases, a certain level of harmonisation ~~is the only way~~helps to ensure an adequate degree of certainty, predictability and simplicity in the application of Member States’ rules of limitation in cases of cross-border traffic accidents;

Amendment 7 #

Evelyn REGNER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Notes however, that the continued existence in the Union of two parallel regimes governing the law applicable in traffic accident cases depending on the country where the claim is brought, namely either the 1971 Hague Traffic Accident Convention or the Rome II Regulation, which combined with the choice of forum possibilities under the Brussels I recast Regulation, creates legal uncertainty and complexity as well as potential opportunities for inappropriate forum shopping; stresses that the weaker party should always be protected by more favourable jurisdiction rules;

Amendment 8 #

Emil RADEV

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4а. Notes that the existence of common minimum rules in respect of limitation periods in cross-border disputes is essential to ensuring that effective legal means are available for the protection of victims of cross-border road traffic accidents and to guaranteeing legal certainty;

Amendment 9 #

Emil RADEV

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5а. Highlights that the significant difference between Member States’ rules in respect of limitation periods for cross- border road traffic accidents creates further obstacles for victims when filing claims for compensation for personal injury and damage to property suffered in Member States other than their own;

source: 603.043

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

2017-07-01Show (2) Changes | Timetravel

activities/3	date 2017-07-05T00:00:00 body EP type Debate in plenary scheduled
activities/3/date	Old 2017-07-06T00:00:00 New 2017-07-04T00:00:00

2017-06-30Show (1) Changes | Timetravel

activities/2/docs/0/text

The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the report by Pavel SVOBODA (EPP, CZ) with recommendations to the Commission on limitation periods for traffic accidents (Initiative – Rule 46 of the Rules of Procedure).

Limitation periods constitute an important and integral part of Member States’ civil liability regimes which operate in traffic accident cases in that a short limitation period may balance a strict liability rule or generous damages awards.

Divergent rules: given the current divergences in relation to limitation rules and the types of problems that are directly related to the disparate national provisions governing transnational personal injury and damage to property cases, Members called for a certain level of harmonisation is the only way to ensure an adequate degree of certainty, predictability and simplicity in the application of Member States’ rules of limitation in cases of cross-border traffic accidents.

Legislative proposal requested: Members called on the Commission to submit on the basis of Article 81(2) TFEU, a proposal for an act on limitation periods in respect of personal injury and damage to property in cross-border road traffic accidents.

The proposed Directive shall establish a special limitation regime for cross-border cases that would safeguard effective access to justice and facilitate the proper functioning of the internal market, eliminating obstacles to the free movement of citizens throughout the territory of the Member States.

Period of limitation: under the proposal, Member States shall ensure that a limitation period of at least four years shall apply to actions relating to compensation for personal injury and damage to property resulting from a cross-border road traffic accident, falling within the Directive.

The proposal provides that the running of the general time limit established in the Directive should be suspended as soon as a claim is made to the insurer or the compensation body, to allow the claimant an opportunity to negotiate the settlement of the claim.

It also contains provisions on the calculation of periods of time.

General information on rules of limitation: Member States shall provide the Commission with up-to-date information on national rules of limitation for compensation claims on damages caused by road accidents. The Commission shall make publicly available this information and in all Union languages.

2017-06-23Show (1) Changes | Timetravel

activities/2/docs

url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2017-0206&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A8-0206/2017

2017-06-17Show (3) Changes | Timetravel

activities/3	date 2017-07-05T00:00:00 body EP type Debate in plenary scheduled
activities/4/date	Old 2017-07-03T00:00:00 New 2017-07-06T00:00:00
activities/4/type	Old Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading New Vote in plenary scheduled

2017-06-03Show (2) Changes | Timetravel

activities/2	date 2017-06-01T00:00:00 body EP type Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
procedure/stage_reached	Old Awaiting committee decision New Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage

2017-06-01Show (2) Changes | Timetravel

activities/1

date: 2017-05-30T00:00:00

body: EP

type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading

committees: body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: DELVAUX Mady group: ECR name: DZHAMBAZKI Angel group: ALDE name: CAVADA Jean-Marie group: GUE/NGL name: MAŠTÁLKA Jiří group: Verts/ALE name: ANDERSSON Max responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2015-06-30T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: EPP name: SVOBODA Pavel

procedure/Modified legal basis

Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150

2017-03-19Show (1) Changes | Timetravel

other/0/dg

Old

Justice

New

url: http://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/justice-and-consumers_en

title: Justice and Consumers

2017-03-16Show (1) Changes | Timetravel

activities/1/date

Old

2017-06-12T00:00:00

New

2017-07-03T00:00:00

2017-03-02Show (2) Changes | Timetravel

activities/0/committees/0/shadows/4	group Verts/ALE name ANDERSSON Max
committees/0/shadows/4	group Verts/ALE name ANDERSSON Max

2017-03-01Show (2) Changes | Timetravel

activities/0/committees/0/shadows/3	group GUE/NGL name MAŠTÁLKA Jiří
committees/0/shadows/3	group GUE/NGL name MAŠTÁLKA Jiří

2017-01-27Show (1) Changes | Timetravel

other/0/dg

Old

url: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/

title: Justice

New

Justice

2016-12-11Show (1) Changes | Timetravel

activities/1

date: 2017-06-12T00:00:00

body: EP

type: Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading

2015-10-28Show (2) Changes | Timetravel

activities/0/committees/0/shadows/1	group ECR name DZHAMBAZKI Angel
committees/0/shadows/1	group ECR name DZHAMBAZKI Angel

2015-10-21Show (2) Changes | Timetravel

activities/0/committees/0/shadows/1	group ALDE name CAVADA Jean-Marie
committees/0/shadows/1	group ALDE name CAVADA Jean-Marie

2015-07-24Show (6) Changes | Timetravel

activities/0/committees/0/date	2015-06-30T00:00:00
activities/0/committees/0/rapporteur	group: EPP name: SVOBODA Pavel
activities/0/committees/0/shadows	group: S&D name: DELVAUX Mady
committees/0/date	2015-06-30T00:00:00
committees/0/rapporteur	group: EPP name: SVOBODA Pavel
committees/0/shadows	group: S&D name: DELVAUX Mady

2015-05-13Show (1) Changes | Timetravel

procedure/subtype

Old

Legislative initiative

New

Request for legislative proposal

2015-05-09Show (1) Changes | Timetravel

other/0

body: EC

dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/ title: Justice

commissioner: JOUROVÁ Věra

2015-05-07Show (3) Changes | Timetravel

activities/0	date 2015-04-30T00:00:00 body EP type Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees body: EP responsible: True committee_full: Legal Affairs committee: JURI
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee	JURI/8/03333
procedure/stage_reached	Old Preparatory phase in Parliament New Awaiting committee decision

2015-05-05Show (5) Changes

activities
committees	body: EP responsible: True committee_full: Legal Affairs committee: JURI
links
other
procedure	reference 2015/2087(INL) title Limitation periods for traffic accidents legal_basis Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 046 stage_reached Preparatory phase in Parliament subtype Legislative initiative type INL - Legislative initiative procedure subject 3.20.05 Road transport: passengers and freight 7.40.02 Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters

Activites

Documents

History

ParlTrack - 2011-2024