Activities of Ashley FOX related to 2011/2117(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on alternative dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters
Amendments (10)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal on the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for online consumer matters in the EU by the end of 2011 and emphasises the importance of its swift adoption; this proposal should respect existing national schemes and avoid any changes to national judicial systems;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Stresses that any proposal from the Commission must be accompanied by a full impact assessment, respecting better regulation rules;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses the need to ensure that European consumers can access ADR systems for transnational as well as national disputes, including on-line sellingfocusing on the on-line market, which is growing rapidly in the EU;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points to the importance of rectifying any existing shortcomings with regard to the geographical coverage of ADR in Europe; deplores the major sectoral deficiencies that persist in most Member States, when sector-by-sector coverage would enable the involvement ofile promoting the improvement of a sector-by-sector coverage involving people who understand the way in which a given sector works;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – introductory part
Paragraph 6 – introductory part
6. Proposes that a single European charterwider non-legislative European charter, respecting current effective national schemes, be drawn up containing the guidelines tohat should be followed in relation to ADR systems established in Europe, these being the following:
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 5
Paragraph 6 – indent 5
– free services: the issue of the cost of ADR should be resolved in order to ensure that such an option is attractive to the parties concerned; a system that is entirely free to the consumer must be considered which should be funded by the industry and include voluntary systems;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Encourages the Commission to make provision for coordination in respect of transnational consumer disputes in order to facilitate access to, and the coordination of, national ADR systems; encourages the Commission also to establish a one-stop-shop and/or a single European phone numberweb-portal in all official European Union languages to facilitate access for the public to existing ADR systems in their Member State or in other Member States, and to issue clear guidelines on their use;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Emphasises that it is crucial to raise consumer awareness of the existence of ADR prior to the initiation of a consumer dispute; proposesuggests that this ‘upstream’ information should include a reference in all contractual documents drawn up by professionals to the possibility of recsoursce to ADR, along with contact details and referral procedures for the relevant ADR systems; however, this requirement should avoid extra costs and bureaucracy;
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Recommends, as a potential incentive for enterprises, that a quality label for mediation be introduced in relation to mediation in consumer disputes, which would be associated with guidelines recognising best practices; a cost-benefit analysis should be carried out on this proposal.