13 Amendments of Antolín SÁNCHEZ PRESEDO related to 2011/2089(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Recalls the European Parliament resolution of 26 March of 2009 on the White Paper on damages actions for breach of the antitrust rules and considers that any initiative in this regard must be coherent with its content;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes, as regards the competition sector, that the most effective tool for deterrence continues to be public enforcementpublic enforcement is essential to implement the provisions of the Treaties, to fully achieve the goals of the EU and to ensure the enforcement of European competition law by the Commission and national competition authorities; is also convinced that private enforcement through collective redress could facilitate theis key to ensure a fair compensation at EU level of harm caused to consumers and undertakings and to contribute to the effectiveness of European competition law;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Points out that damages actions for the breach of European competition law have special characteristics distinctive from other damages actions since they always affect powers conferred according the Treaties to public authorities in order to identify and sanction the infractions, they are based by definition in behaviours that distort the smooth functioning of the internal market and might also affect different levels of relationships among companies and with consumers; underlines moreover that it exists comparative experience to evaluate and abundant literature to address the specific and important number of issues that don't exist in other different fields;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that private enforcementrelatively few private actions for damages already exists in most Member States even though many brought before national courts, and that many Member States do not have explicitly established specific rules on collective redress; recalls that only Member Statethis situation hinders the effectiveness of the right to access to the justice and of European competition law since individual actions may not always be sufficient and efficient; reminds thave thet Member States competence to legislate on the national rules applicable for quantifying the amount of compensation that can be awarded; to enforce the national law cannot prevent the uniform application of European law;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Believes that an advanced system of collective redress can have a deterrent effect to avoid breaches of Community competition law and furthermore stimulate the effectiveness of alternative disputes resolution systems;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Rejects any system whereby abusive litigation and unmeritorious claims are encouraged by the introduction of contingency fees for lawyers or, unbalanced information disclosure systems, including those that could prevent public action, as well as the availability of punitive damages;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that the leniency policy is an essential tool for uncovering cartels; emphasises that collective redress should not compromise the effectiveness of the leniency programme; underlines, therefore, that any legislative instrumenthorizontal framework applicable to collective redress must fully respect all the specificities of the antitrust sector;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Suggests a twofold principle of follow-on action, wherebystand alone and follow-on actions. Taking into account that in the latter, private enforcement under collective redress can only be implemented if theis implemented after a prior infringement decision by the Commission or a national competition authority; whereas in the case of stand alone is necessary to ensure thas been a prior infringement decision by the Commission or a national competition authorit any private action can be freeze until a decision on public enforcement about the infringement has been adopted by the competent competition authority under European law and, in any case, to ensure the protection of the leniency programs and the effectiveness of the initiatives of the authorities belonging to the European Competition Network to enforce the community competition law in accordance with the Treaty;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stresses that any horizontal framework should deal only with the common aspects of obtaining damages collectively; further stresses that, where appropriate, procedural and international private-law issues must apply to collective actions in general irrespective of the sector concerned, whereas special sectoral rules should be laid out in separate legislative instruments and therefore not in the horizontal framework;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Believes that each individual damage or loss suffered plays a pivotal role when deciding to file an action, and takes the view that national procedures rules on Member States could use the Regulation No 861/2007 on a European Small Claims Procedure as a reference for collective redress where the value to the claim does not exceed its scope;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Reiterates that safeguards have to be put in place in order to avoid unmeritorious claims, so as to guarantee equality of arms in court proceedings while avoiding defencelessness, and stresses that such safeguards must cover, inter alia, the following points: – Public authorities such as ombudsmen or prosecutors as well as representative bodies may bring an action on behalf of a clearly identified group and identification of the group must have taken place before the claim is brought; – European criteria is needed to define organisations qualified to bring representative actions and Member States should designate them under such criteria. It could take into account, where appropriate, Article 3 of Directive 2009/22/EC on injunctions for the protection of consumer interests[1] but needs to be further specified in order to ensure that abusive litigation is avoided; such criteria should cover, inter alia, the financial and human resources of qualifying organisations; – a Class Actions system has to be rejected on the grounds that it would promote excessive litigation, may be contrary to some Member States’ Constitutions and may affect the rights of any victim who might participate in the procedure unknowingly and yet would be bound by the Court’s decision; – victims must in any case be free to seek the alternative of individual compensatory redress before a competent court; – only the actual damage sustained may be compensated: punitive damages and unfair enrichment must be prohibited; by virtue of the concept of compensation the damages awarded must be distributed to individual victims in proportion to the harm they sustained individually; by and large, contingency fees are unknown in Europe and must be rejected; – collective claimants must not be in a better position than individual claimants, and each claimant must provide evidence for his claim; an obligation to disclose documents to the claimants (‘discovery’) should be established only under judicial scrutiny, be proportionate and respect confidentiality and competition rules – there can be no action with defencelessness of the claimant arising from the lack of financial means nor without financial risk; Member States are to address these problems by determining their own rules, in particular on allocation of costs according to which each party must bear the costs avoiding excessive costs and burdens to claimants; – Victims of minor and diffuse damages should have appropriate means to access to the justice through collective redress and achieve a fair compensation. – the Commission shall set out any appropriate conditions or guidelines to give effectiveness to European law according to the treaties [1] OJ L 166, 11.6.1998, p. 51;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 d (new)
Paragraph 5 d (new)
5d. Stresses that any horizontal framework must ensure two basic premises: - Member States will not apply more restrictive conditions to the Collective Redress cases arising from the infringement of Community law than those applied to those cases arising from the infringement of Member States law. - None of the principles laid out in the horizontal framework will prevent the adoption of further measures to achieve the full effectiveness of European law;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Emphasises that any legislative instrument pertaining to collective redress in European competition law should only be adopted under codecision; furthermore consider that collective redress under European competition law deserves a specific legislative initiative without more delay and unnecessary previous legislative action;