12 Amendments of Claude TURMES related to 2011/2089(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the Commission’s work towards a coherent European approach to collective redress (CR); calls on the Commission to pay particular attention to consumer and SME protection and finally to come forward swiftly with a legislative framework including minimum standards for an EU- consistent system as well as sectoral specific initiatives for instance in the fields of competition, consumer protection and the environment;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Recalls that, even though consumers and competition rights exist across the EU, consumers and businesses are very often unable to enforce their rights due to the inadequacy of existing means of redress in mass claim situations; notes also that, as a consequence of EU market integration, a majority of mass detriment situations have a cross-border component, highlighting the need for EU-consistent redress mechanisms based on the same features and whereby cross-border cases can be addressed effectively;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – indent 1
Paragraph 2 – indent 1
– criteria limitfor recognising and duly authorising those bodies who can organise CR actions to those with an active interest in the matter of the action,
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – indent 3
Paragraph 2 – indent 3
– plaintiffs should guarantee reimbursement of any liability for legal costs (loser pays principle)the unsuccessful party should bear the litigation costs according to the loser pays principle, however, the court shall not recognise costs of the successful party to the extent that they were unnecessarily incurred or are disproportionate to the claim,
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – indent 4
Paragraph 2 – indent 4
– EU-wide and CR specific jurisdiction rules to prevent ‘forum shopping’,
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 – indent 5
Paragraph 2 – indent 5
– limits on representation fees and success fees;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Points out that experience reported so far from those EU Member States where such redress mechanisms are already in place shows that there has been no abuse or liquidation of businesses;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Following the positive experience in Member States where it exists, calls on the Commission to consider establishing a two-stage test-case procedure as a cost- effective CR system: – first stage: a declaration on the responsibility of the enterprise on the basis of exemplary cases submitted by the authorized bodies and after admissibility has been verified, – second stage: after publicity and constitution of a group of plaintiffs, a decision on the compensation, either on the basis of a settlement agreement approved by the court or a decision of the court;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2c. Competence for the test-case should lie with the court where the defendant is domiciled or that of the Member State in which the market is most affected by the illegal practice; the follow-up legal actions should be brought before the courts where the affected consumers/businesses are domiciled and the law for deciding on the legal consequences of the test-case judgment (i.e. individual rights to compensation, extent of compensation) should be the law of these same countries;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that any binding measures in a legislative proposal should apply mainly to the minimum standards as well as features ensuring EU-cross border effective implementation, giving the Member States, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, the right to decide further measures; asks, however, for the Commission also to issue voluntary guidelines for the Member States;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that any participation shcould be subject to an ‘opt-in’ or ‘opt-out’ system by the affected parties; believes that any action, if ruled admissible, should be preceded by a comprehensive public information campaign, according to evaluation of existing best-practices;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. CBelieves that Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms are useful tools that should be promoted, however they can only be effective if there is possibility of court action in case of failure; calls on the Member States to inform consumers of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism as a possible quicker and lower- cost option instead of the filing of CR actionsbut to provide the means of effective access to justice in case of failure of ADR; stresses, however, that ADR should not be mandatory and any contractual statements to that effect should be deemed void in the case of violation of Union law.