18 Amendments of Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT related to 2011/2089(INI)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas individual lawsuits are often notmay not constitute an effective means to stop unlawful practices or to obtain compensation, as consumers are reluctant to initiate private lawsuits, in particular if the individual loss is small in comparison to the costs,
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas, according to the Flash Eurobarometer on 'Consumer attitudes towards cross-border trade and consumer protection' of March 2011, 79 % of European consumers state that they would be more willing to defend their rights in court if they could join a collective action,
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the integration of European markets and the consequent increase in cross-border activities highlight the need for a coherent EU-wide approach to address the numerous mass detriment cases where consumers are left empty handed as the procedures for the collective claim of compensatory relief which have been introduced in a number of Member States do not provide for cross- border solutions,
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that, as a consequence of the weaknesses of the current redress and enforcement framework in the EU, a significant the existing legal framework at EU level to put an end to infringements and encourage cooperation between competent national authorities suffers from several shortcomings; calls on the Commission to further reinforce and increase the effectiveness of Directive 98/27/EC on injunctions for the proportection of consumers and SMEs who have suffered damage do not obtain redress, and continued illegal practices cause significant aggregate loss to society' interests and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws, in order to ensure appropriate public enforcement of consumers' rights in the EU; insists nonetheless on the fact that neither Directive 98/27/EC nor Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 allow for consumers to be compensated for the damage suffered;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Notes that, according to a study carried out for DG SANCO by Civil Consulting in 2008 ('Evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of collective redress mechanisms in the EU'), none of the existing collective redress mechanisms within the EU have generated disproportionate economic consequences on the businesses concerned;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that numerous previous consultations have allowed for the identification of the relevant gaps in the existing regulatory framework, thus providing adequate evidence of the need for an EU actionprovided adequate evidence of the need for a coherent EU-wide approach, common principles and more coordinated action among Member States in the field of collective redress to remedy the current shortcomings;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls therefore on the Commission to submit a legislative initiativeproposal establishing a set of common principles and safeguards for a collective redress mechanism applicable to both national and cross-border cases, while taking due account of the EU legal tradition and the legal orders of the 27 Member States, and in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality provided for in Article 5 of the Treaty on the European Union; suggests to include in the proposal ways to enhance coordination and exchange of good practices between Member States;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Emphasises that early settlement of disputes should be encouraged where possible, and court litigation should be viewed as the last resortthrough dialogue among the parties concerned should be encouraged where possible; calls on the business community to recognise that it is sometimes in their best interest to take voluntary initiatives to effectively compensate consumers in order to avoid entering into litigation procedures;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 c (new)
Paragraph 9 c (new)
9 c. Emphasises that the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms should be strongly encouraged and that court litigation should be viewed as the last resort;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses that a European approach to collective redress shouldmust not give any economic incentive to bring abusive collective actions, and should provide for strong and effective safeguards to avoid unmeritorious claims and disproportionate costs for businesses, particularly in this period of financial crisis;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Emphasises that features which encourage a litigation culture such as punitive damages, contingency fees, the absence of limitations as regards standing, and excessive damagesird- party financing, the lack of control over representative entities standing in court, the opt-out principle, the possibility for lawyers to canvass potential victims, and the discovery procedure for bringing evidence to court are not compatible with the European legal tradition and should be avoidmust be rejected;
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 b (new)
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12 b. Insists on the need to build the European approach to collective redress on the opt-in principle, whereby victims are clearly identified and take part in the procedure only if they expressly indicated their wish to do so, in order to avoid potential abuses;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. StressesInsists on the fact that, in the efficiency of collective redress requires a representative entity (e.g. Ombudsmen, consumer or trade associcase of cross-border disputes, the representative entity (public authority or authorised consumer organisations) toshould be able to stand forrepresent victims from other Member States, whereas ao joined the collective repdresentative entity could be also allowed to represent victims in judicial or out-of-court proceedingss procedure, and should likewise be able to stand for victims joining a collective redress procedure in another Member State;
Amendment 98 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
15 b. Insists on the need to respect the loser pays principle according to which the losing party pays for the costs of the proceedings in order to avoid the proliferation of unmeritorious claims;
Amendment 100 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Emphasises that the provision of information about collective actions plays a major role in the accessibility and the effectiveness of the procedure as consumers need to be aware that they have been the victims ofaffected by the same illegal practice and that there is a collective action launched, including in another Member State; calls on Member States to put in place efficient mechanisms ensuring that a maximum of victims are informed, in particular when those are domiciled in several Member Statesaffected consumers are informed and made aware of their rights and obligations, in particular when those are domiciled in several Member States; stresses that consumer organisations both at national and EU-level should play their part in providing information to their members throughout the EU;
Amendment 107 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Affirms that, in order to make collective actions practically possible, Member States should ensure that adequate funding mechanisms are made available; stresses that public authorities should refuse to allocate resources to unmeritorious claimsand considering that some consumer organisations may be unable to pursue collective actions due to a lack of resources, the Commission should investigate the financing of collective redress in a way that does not distort freedom of contract, free competition and the principles of the internal market;
Amendment 112 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 17 b (new)
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17 b. Considers that, in any event, compensations cannot be used to finance collective redress procedures since only the damage actually suffered by the claimants must be compensated;
Amendment 116 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18