Activities of Sajjad KARIM related to 2011/2089(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on ‘Towards a Coherent European Approach to Collective Redress’ PDF (280 KB) DOC (175 KB)
Amendments (9)
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Takes the view that disputes frequently cover different industry sectors and different areas of law and that victims of unlawful behaviour face the same difficulties in obtaining redress in different sectors, and is concerned that anypossible EU initiatives in the field of collective redress will result in a fragmentation of national procedural and damages laws which will weaken and not strengthen access to justice within the EU; in the event that it is decided after duetailed consideration that a Union schemeinitiatives in the field of collective redress isare needed and desirable, asks that any proposal in the field of collective redress should take the form of a horizontal instrument providing uniform access to justice within the EUconsiders that a sectoral approach would be the most appropriate method, accompanied by a non-binding framework outlining minimum standards and safeguards to be applied by Member States in the establishment or operation of redress mechanisms;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Considers that the establishment of common principles could guide the development of collective redress systems in Member States, but stresses the need to take due account of the legal traditions of the individual Member States;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Believes that in certain sectors, for example competition, EU action may be merited; however, cautions that sectoral initiatives must only be introduced where evidence of economic and other possible impacts demonstrates clearly a need for measures at the EU level; further believes that these measures should operate on the basis of cooperation and access of claimants to Member State systems, with such access being facilitated through the sharing of common principles and safeguards as set out in the framework;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Considers that collective action under a horizontal instrument should be permissiblsuch sectoral measures creating links between Member State collective redress systems could successfully facilitate access to justice where the defendant and victims represented are not domiciled in the same Member State (cross-border dimension) and where the rights alleged to have been infringed are granted by EU legislation (infringement of EU law);
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 – introductory part
Paragraph 12 – introductory part
12. Reiterates that safeguards have to be put in placeConsiders that any framework or sectoral measure must include the introduction of safeguards in order to avoid unmeritorious claims and misuse of a horizontal instrumentcollective redress mechanisms, so as to guarantee equality of arms in court proceedings, and stresses that such safeguards must cover, inter alia, the following points:
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Stresses that a horizontal instrument should itselfny measures addressing collective action in a sector should lay down rules to prevent a rush to the courts (‘forum shopping’) and believes that forum shopping cannot be excluded by establishing that the courts where the majority of victims of the infringement of Union law are domiciled or where the major part of the damage occurred are to have jurisdiction, as these flexible rules would leave open the possibility of abusive litigation; considers therefore that the courts with jurisdiction in the place where the defendant is domiciled should have jurisdiction;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Also favours a horizontal instrument that provides for unified rules on the applicable law and cCalls for further examination of how the conflict-of-law rules can be amended; believes that one solution could be to apply the law of the place where the majority of the victims are domiciled, bearing in mind that individual victims should remain free not to pursue the opt-in collective action but instead to seek redress individually in accordance with the general rules of private international law laid down in the Brussels I, Rome I and Rome II regulations;