14 Amendments of Konstantinos POUPAKIS related to 2011/0373(COD)
Amendment 134 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4 a (new)
Recital 4 a (new)
(4a) The inconsistencies in the ADR mechanisms of Member States in terms of coverage, quality and public awareness constitute a barrier for the Single Market. As a result, many consumers refrain from cross-border trading and show a lack of confidence, since disputes with traders could be solved easily, rapidly and inexpensively. Furthermore, for the same reasons, where there is insufficient access to quality ADR procedures, traders may refrain from cross-border transactions with consumers. Moreover, traders established in a Member State where the quality of ADR procedures is inadequate are placed at a competitive disadvantage compared to those who have access to quality ADR procedures, since the latter are able to resolve consumer disputes more rapidly and at less expense.
Amendment 139 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) This Directive should apply to contractual disputes between consumers and traders that are arising from the sale of goods or provision of services in all economic sectors, including all public and private-sector suppliers. This should include complaints submitted by consumers against traders but also complaints submitted by traders against consumers. This Directive should not apply to disputes between traders; however, it should not prevent Member States from adopting or maintaining in force provisions on procedures for the out-of-court resolution of such disputes.
Amendment 145 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10 a (new)
Recital 10 a (new)
(10a) In order to facilitate the implementation of this Directive, the Commission is urged to draw up guidelines in close cooperation with Member States on the relationship between this Directive and other EU legislation.
Amendment 174 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19 a (new)
Recital 19 a (new)
(19a) Consumers cannot always take advantage of the amicable resolution of disputes either because they are unaware of the existence of ADR entities or simply because they do not wish to do so. At the same time, it is likely that some unfair or misleading commercial practices exist covertly and systematically, potentially having a very adverse effect on a large number of consumers, without these practices being denounced and addressed. In these cases, an ADR entity should have the competence to decide to launch investigative procedures, based on its experience with commercial practices which have not necessarily been the subject of complaints by consumers, but in respect of which there exists a reasonable suspicion or evidence that they constitute a significant violation of consumers' rights and therefore require special scrutiny. The ADR entity should also be able to inform the public about the findings of these investigations and address public recommendations to traders to correct their offending behaviour.
Amendment 187 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 a (new)
Recital 21 a (new)
(21a) Given the increasing importance of the concept of corporate social responsibility and the social impact and credibility of a company, the publication of unfair or misleading commercial practices may cause more damage than financial penalties. The prospect of the publication of proposed solutions by an ADR entity, by which disputes can be resolved more effectively, may constitute for traders who systematically refuse to apply them, a valuable tool for motivating them vigorously to pursue a consensual resolution of disputes and also for preventing such conduct in future, while safeguarding consumers' interests.
Amendment 191 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 b (new)
Recital 21 b (new)
(21b) In order to reconcile, on the one hand, the need for consumer access to ADR procedures and, on the other, the need to protect traders from unfair or unfounded complaints, it is indispensable that such complaints be submitted to an ADR entity in good faith, namely: (a) from a procedural standpoint, the consumer should accompany the complaint with sufficient evidence constituting the basis of the dispute in question, (b) from an ethical standpoint, the trader should be cognisant of the allegations against him and have the opportunity to express his opinion, possibly as part of an internal complaints handling procedure, before the complaint reaches the ADR entity, and (c) from a legal standpoint, it should not be possible to refer a dispute for resolution by an ADR entity, unless all means to bring about an amicable agreement directly between trader and consumer have previously been exhausted without success.
Amendment 266 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Amendment 294 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a
a) the natural persons in charge of alternative dispute resolution, their academic and professional qualifications, the method of their appointment and the length of their mandate;
Amendment 321 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 1 a (new)
An ADR entity may decide to launch an investigation into trade practices which have not necessarily been referred to it, but in respect of which there exists a reasonable suspicion or evidence that they are unfair and misleading for a large numbers of consumers. The findings of these investigations may be published and provide a basis for direct recommendations to traders.
Amendment 323 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Consumers may resort to ADR procedures within a period of time that may not be less than one year of their becoming fully aware of the aggressive acts or omissions which form the basis of their dispute with the trader, in order to ensure easy access to ADR entities and thus avoid making the solution even more difficult.
Amendment 326 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
aa) the dispute between the parties is adequately documented with evidence showing the need for a solution;
Amendment 333 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a – introductory part
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a – introductory part
a) the consumerparties, before agreeing to a suggested solution, is informedare first and foremost informed about their rights under existing legislation that:
Amendment 349 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
b a) if the parties decide to reject the proposed solution, the ADR entity may publish this solution;
Amendment 374 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 12 – paragraph 1 a (new)
The Commission and Member States shall ensure the proper dissemination of information on the possibilities for consumers to receive compensation in the event of a contractual dispute with a trader, as stated in Article 2.