Activities of Jean-Marie CAVADA related to 2009/2170(INI)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (8)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas consideration of an appropriate rule has been coloured by controversy about "libel tourism", a type of forum shopping in which a claimant elects to bring an action for defamation in the jurisdiction which is considered most likely to produce a favourable result – generally that of England and Wales, which is "regarded as the most claimant-friendly in the world"; whereas, however, this is an issue that goes beyond the United Kingdom and is also of concern for other jurisdictions;
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas libel tourism is facilitated by Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 ("the Brussels I Regulation"), which, in effect, allows a claimant to bring an action in the jurisdiction of his or her choice;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C b (new)
Recital C b (new)
Cb. whereas a balance of interests needs to be struck, in particular when dealing with issues that have an impact on the preservation of the freedom of the press and the journalistic profession; whereas the choice of court lies with the claimant, which greatly facilitates the pursuit of claims against publishers and/or the media; whereas the provisions on applicable law must thus ensure a high level of legal certainty for journalists and the media in cases of cross-border litigation;
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas legal remedies must be available when that freedom is abused, particularly to the detriment of peoples' private lives and reputation12; whereas, where powerful media organisations are guilty of such abuse, the victims, who are not always affluent business tycoons or media celebrities and may be simply ordinary citizens, may have in practice no access to justice on account of the expense 1 Reputation is nowadays considered to be protected by the ECHR as part of private life (see N. v. Sweden, No. 11366/85). 2 Reputation is nowadays considered to be protected by the ECHR as part of private life (see N. v. Sweden, No. 11366/85). of legal proceedings each Member State should ensure that such remedies exist and are effective in cases of infringements of such rights; whereas Member States should strive to ensure that prohibitively high legal costs do not result in any claimant being denied access to justice in practice; whereas the cost of legal proceedings can also be ruinous for publishersthe media;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas it is considered that a provision of the type set out in the annex coupling the basic principle that the law of the place where the damage occurs is paramount with a foreseeability clause to take the legitimate interests of publishers into account ought to be put forward by the Commission in order to fill the gap in the Rome II Regulation; whereas the criterion of the closest connection should be used for the right of reply, since such relief should be granted swiftly and is interim in nature; whereas the provision of the type set out in the Annex should also cater for party autonomy and the option of electing to apply the lex fori where the claimant elects to sue in the publishermedia's courts for damage sustained in more than one Member State;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex - Article 5 a – paragraph 1
Annex - Article 5 a – paragraph 1
(1) Without prejudice to Article 4(2) and (3),here the claimant sues for all the damages before the courts of the plaw applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out ofce in which he or she has the centre of his/her interests, with regard to a violations of privacy andor rights relating to personality, including defamation, shall be the law of the country in which the rights of the person seeking compensation for damageon condition that those rights are, or are likely to be, directly and substantially affected. However, the law applicable shall be the law of the country in which the person claimed to be liable is habitually resident if he or she could not reasonably have foreseen substantial consequences of his or her act occurring in the country designated by the first sentenceto a non- contractual obligation arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation, shall be the law of the country in which the person claimed to be liable is habitually resident. This shall also be the applicable law if the claimant sues for all damages before the courts of the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled.
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex – Article 5 a – paragraph 1 a (new)
Annex – Article 5 a – paragraph 1 a (new)
(1a) When the rights of the person seeking compensation for damage are, or are likely to be, affected in one or more than one Member State, and that person sues in the courts of one of the Member States in the territory of which content is or may be accessible, the defendant may not be made subject to stricter requirements and/or more unreasonable litigation costs than those provided for by the substantive law applicable in his or her country of domicile.
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Annexe - Article 5 a – paragraph 4 a (new)
Annexe - Article 5 a – paragraph 4 a (new)
(4a) In relation to paragraph 1, the litigation costs shall not exceed those imposed by the country of the applicable law.