Activities of Jürgen CREUTZMANN related to 2011/2089(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on Towards a Coherent European Approach to Collective Redress
Amendments (24)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas consumers affected by a legal infringement that wish to pursue a court case in order to obtain redress facehave a wide range of means at their disposal if they wish to settle the dispute out of court and obtain redress, and whereas legal action involves significant barriers in terms of the effectiveness and affordability due to high litigation costsof the procedure, complex and lengthy procedureedings and a lack of information on the available means of redress,
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas individual lawsuits are oftenin some cases not an effective means to stop unlawful practices or to obtain compensation, as some consumers are reluctant to initiate private lawsuits, in particular if the individual loss is small in comparison to the potential costs,
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas 79% of European consumers state that they would be moreconsumers in the various Member States differ in their stated degree of willingness to defend their rights in court if they could join a collective action,
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas public enforcement by way of ceasing infringements and imposing fines does not in itself enable consumers to be compensated for damage sufferis the best way of punishing breaches of the law, as society as whole benefits from the compensation obtained,
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the overall performance of the existing consumer redress and enforcement tools designed at EU level is notcan be deemed satisfactory, so that no further action is necessary,
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas bundling of the claims in a single collective redress procedure, or allowing such a claim to be brought by a representative entity or body acting in the public interest, cwould perhaps simplify the process and reduce costs for the parties involvedindividual plaintiffs, but would at the same lead to an exponential increase in the costs incurred by defendants,
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas despite 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 solutionrelatively few mass detriment cases are brought, so that there is no need for an EU-wide approach to address such cases,
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas collective legal enforcement systems are not part of the legal traditions of most Member States,
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Recital G c (new)
Recital G c (new)
Gc. whereas experience in this area gained in some countries clearly shows that the mere threat of collective legal action causes undertakings to incur substantial legal costs even if there is no evidence that they have broken the law,
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Subheading 1
Subheading 1
Amendment 26 #
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 proportion of consumers and SMEs who have suffered damage do not obtain redress, and continued illegal practices cause significant aggregate loss to society;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Emphasises that this situation leads to a significant discrimination in access to justice to the detriment of the internal market as consumers and businesses are being treated differently according to their place of residenceprovisions governing judicial procedures are a matter for the Member States;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that numerous previous consultations have allowed for the identification of the relevant gaps inpros and cons of the existing regulatory framework, thus providing adequate evidence of thebut have not revealed any need for an EU action in the field of collective redress to remedy the current shortcomings;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls therefore on the Commission to submit a legislative initiative establishing a set of common principles 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 Staterespect the EU legal tradition and the legal orders of the 27 Member States and not to take any further action with regard to collective enforcement of rights;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that a momentum for harmonisation on European level also arises sincethe fact that certain Member States are currently considering possibilities of introducing substantial reforms concerning their collective redress schemes shows that this problem can be solved satisfactorily at national level;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses that a European approach to collective redress shwould not give anyentail the inherent risk of creating economic incentives to bring abusive collective actions, and should provide for effective safeguards to avoidwhich would give rise to unmeritorious claims and disproportionate costs for businesses, particularly in this period of financial crisis;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Underlines that an effective collective redress system should beis not normally capable of delivering legally certain, fair and adequate outcomes within a reasonable timeframe, while respecting the rights of all parties involved;
Amendment 74 #
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 damages are not compatible with the European legal tradition and shouldmust be avoided at all costs;
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Maintains that the court has a crucial role to play in deciding on the admissibility of the claim, the representativeness of the claimant and controlling the ways to inform consumers;Does not affect the English version.
Amendment 94 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Considers that the judge should also determine how the compensation is to be organised and check if funding arrangements are fair; stresses that court control mechanisms and proportionality requirements wouldmust protect defendants against abuse of the system;
Amendment 104 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 114 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18