6 Amendments of Dita CHARANZOVÁ related to 2018/0089(COD)
Amendment 83 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) Member States should be allowed to decide whether their court or national authority seized of a representative action for redress may exceptionally issue, instead of a redress order, a declaratory decision regarding the liability of the trader towards the consumers harmed by an infringement which could be directly relied upon in subsequent redress actions by individual consumers. This possibility should be reserved to strictly exceptional and duly justified cases where the quantification of the individual redress to be attributed to each of the consumer concerned by the representative action is extremely complex and it would be inefficient to carry it out within the representative action. Declaratory decisions should not be issued in situations which are not extremely complex and in particular where consumers concerned are identifiable and where the consumers have suffered a comparable harm in relation to a period of time or a purchase. Similarly, declaratory decisions should not be issued where the amount of loss suffered by each of the individual consumers is so small that individual consumers are unlikely to claim for individual redress. The court or the national authority should duly motivate its recourse to a declaratory decision instead of a redress order in a particular case.
Amendment 117 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) To enhance legal certainty, avoid inconsistency in the application of Union law and to increase the effectiveness and procedural efficiency of representative actions and of possible follow-on actions for redress, the finding of an infringement established in a final decision, including a final injunction order under this Directive, issued by an administrative authority or a court should not be relitigated in subsequent legal actions related to the same infringement by the same trader as regards the nature of the infringement and its material, personal, temporal and territorial scope as determined by that final decision. Where an action seeking measures eliminating the continuing effects of the infringement, including for redress, is brought in a Member State other than the Member State where a final decision establishing this infringement was issued, the decision should constitute at least a rebuttable presumption that the infringement has occurred.
Amendment 133 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. This Directive aims at minimum harmonisation and shall not prevent Member States from adopting or maintaining in force provisions designed to grant qualified entities or any other persons concerned other procedural means to bring actions aimed at the protection of the collective interests of consumers at national level.
Amendment 161 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point c a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 – point c a (new)
(c a) it is, at all times, fully transparent about the source of funding of its activity in general and the funds that it uses to support the action.
Amendment 246 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. The qualified entity seeking a redress order as referred in Article 6(1) shall declare at an early stage of the action the source of the funds used for its activity in general and the funds that it uses to support the action. It shall demonstrate that it has sufficient financial resources to represent the best interests of the consumers concerned and to meet any adverse costs should the action fail.
Amendment 276 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that a final decision referred to in paragraph 1, taken in another Member State is considered by their national courts or administrative authorities at least as a rebuttable presumption that an infringement has occurred.