Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-04-23-Speech-1-239"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070423.23.1-239"6
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, honourable Members, over 40 years ago in
the Court gave EU market players and citizens the rights they need to play a central role in our European project. The legal environment in which the victims of antitrust infringements currently find themselves is not acceptable. I got the message that everybody agrees on that. I would like to thank you for the stimulating debate here this evening on how we might gradually improve this legal environment, and I look forward to Parliament’s vote on the report. So far, so good.
I should like to leave you with two key messages. First, I hope that this House will send out a strong signal that the current situation is not acceptable and that is what I have got from you. This is all about rights, and this House has been a consistent supporter of rights across all policies and all areas of European cooperation. We have to give European citizens and European businesses the ability to exercise their rights under European competition laws. This is an area in which the Community can show its relevance to the daily life of citizens and to business.
Second, it is by working together in dialogue, through ideas and constructive criticism, that we will be able to make improvements, at the same time avoiding the known pitfalls. I look forward to taking this process forward with the White Paper at the turn of the year.
Thank you for the interesting debate and thank you especially, rapporteur, for your hard work on this important file.
I would now like to respond to a few issues raised in our debate this evening. Mr Doorn raised the question of legal base. That is important and quite clear. At the stage of a Green Paper, and in the absence of any Commission proposal, it is rather premature, if you will allow me to say so, to discuss the question of legal base at this stage. The Treaty offers appropriate, specific and general legal bases for measures in this area and I imagine that we could agree upon that. However, a pertinent base, and hence the applicable procedure, can only be identified in line with the nature, objectives and scope of any individual measure possibly envisaged after the White Paper. I will, however, consider the extent to which it may be appropriate to say something about legal bases in the forthcoming White Paper. So, there is still something to look at there.
I am aware of the need to be sensitive as regards national procedural rules. There is no doubt about that. That is quite a clear warning. On substance, we already have one uniform European competition law, and by their very nature, breaches of the antitrust rules have a cross-border impact because they affect our internal market, and that is what we are protecting. It makes sense to me that the right to compensation should also be equally enforceable throughout our internal market.
It is only to the extent that the procedural rules of the Member States do not guarantee effectively the substantive rights conferred by the Treaty that the Commission may seek some approximation of these rules. Any measures proposed would have to meet the strict tests of subsidiarity, proportionality and necessity. The White Paper will be accompanied by an impact assessment, as I have already said.
Mr Evans mentioned the need to avoid encouraging a litigation culture and the risk of unmerited claims being brought. The Commission is encouraging a competition culture compatible with our existing European legal cultures. We will pursue a measured and balanced approach, because like you, we are determined to avoid opening the door to the excesses which some other jurisdictions have experienced. But fear is a very bad adviser. None of the key characteristics of US antitrust litigation is suggested as an option in the Green Paper.
Many of those of support facilitating damage actions, like Mrs Bowles, stressed the need to avoid tilting the scales too much in favour of claimants. However, these same commentators also recognised that the scales are currently tipped against the victims of antitrust damages, and hence that something should be done. The Commission is striving for a proportionate and measured approach developed in consultation with stakeholders.
Mrs Wallis mentioned collective actions for damages claims. Given the costs of litigation, it is unlikely that individual consumers will bring small-value damages claims against the perpetrators of competition law infringements. So it is worth looking at options for collective redress, as she rightly mentioned. The Green Paper looks at representative actions brought by consumer organisations. So let us be clear – and I repeat – US-style opt-out class actions are
on the agenda and will not be on my agenda.
In opt-out class actions, lawyers act on behalf of an unidentified class of persons and mainly pursue their own interests. In representative actions, the latter have no separate interest different from that of the injured parties they represent. The Commission thus believes that the interests of consumers are better served by a representative action than by an opt-out class action, and I hope this will also reassure Mrs Berès.
Your involvement signals the importance of the debate launched by the Green Paper, and is a reason for hope, as we are all aware that there is something to be done. There is no doubt about it: the devil is in the detail."@en4
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, honourable Members, over 40 years ago in
the Court gave EU market players and citizens the rights they need to play a central role in our European project. The legal environment in which the victims of antitrust infringements currently find themselves is not acceptable. I got the message that everybody agrees on that. I would like to thank you for the stimulating debate here this evening on how we might gradually improve this legal environment, and I look forward to Parliament’s vote on the report. So far, so good.
I should like to leave you with two key messages. First, I hope that this House will send out a strong signal that the current situation is not acceptable and that is what I have got from you. This is all about rights, and this House has been a consistent supporter of rights across all policies and all areas of European cooperation. We have to give European citizens and European businesses the ability to exercise their rights under European competition laws. This is an area in which the Community can show its relevance to the daily life of citizens and to business.
Second, it is by working together in dialogue, through ideas and constructive criticism, that we will be able to make improvements, at the same time avoiding the known pitfalls. I look forward to taking this process forward with the White Paper at the turn of the year.
Thank you for the interesting debate and thank you especially, rapporteur, for your hard work on this important file.
I would now like to respond to a few issues raised in our debate this evening. Mr Doorn raised the question of legal base. That is important and quite clear. At the stage of a Green Paper, and in the absence of any Commission proposal, it is rather premature, if you will allow me to say so, to discuss the question of legal base at this stage. The Treaty offers appropriate, specific and general legal bases for measures in this area and I imagine that we could agree upon that. However, a pertinent base, and hence the applicable procedure, can only be identified in line with the nature, objectives and scope of any individual measure possibly envisaged after the White Paper. I will, however, consider the extent to which it may be appropriate to say something about legal bases in the forthcoming White Paper. So, there is still something to look at there.
I am aware of the need to be sensitive as regards national procedural rules. There is no doubt about that. That is quite a clear warning. On substance, we already have one uniform European competition law, and by their very nature, breaches of the antitrust rules have a cross-border impact because they affect our internal market, and that is what we are protecting. It makes sense to me that the right to compensation should also be equally enforceable throughout our internal market.
It is only to the extent that the procedural rules of the Member States do not guarantee effectively the substantive rights conferred by the Treaty that the Commission may seek some approximation of these rules. Any measures proposed would have to meet the strict tests of subsidiarity, proportionality and necessity. The White Paper will be accompanied by an impact assessment, as I have already said.
Mr Evans mentioned the need to avoid encouraging a litigation culture and the risk of unmerited claims being brought. The Commission is encouraging a competition culture compatible with our existing European legal cultures. We will pursue a measured and balanced approach, because like you, we are determined to avoid opening the door to the excesses which some other jurisdictions have experienced. But fear is a very bad adviser. None of the key characteristics of US antitrust litigation is suggested as an option in the Green Paper.
Many of those of support facilitating damage actions, like Mrs Bowles, stressed the need to avoid tilting the scales too much in favour of claimants. However, these same commentators also recognised that the scales are currently tipped against the victims of antitrust damages, and hence that something should be done. The Commission is striving for a proportionate and measured approach developed in consultation with stakeholders.
Mrs Wallis mentioned collective actions for damages claims. Given the costs of litigation, it is unlikely that individual consumers will bring small-value damages claims against the perpetrators of competition law infringements. So it is worth looking at options for collective redress, as she rightly mentioned. The Green Paper looks at representative actions brought by consumer organisations. So let us be clear – and I repeat – US-style opt-out class actions are
on the agenda and will not be on my agenda.
In opt-out class actions, lawyers act on behalf of an unidentified class of persons and mainly pursue their own interests. In representative actions, the latter have no separate interest different from that of the injured parties they represent. The Commission thus believes that the interests of consumers are better served by a representative action than by an opt-out class action, and I hope this will also reassure Mrs Berès.
Your involvement signals the importance of the debate launched by the Green Paper, and is a reason for hope, as we are all aware that there is something to be done. There is no doubt about it: the devil is in the detail."@cs1
"Hr. formand, mine damer og herrer! For over 40 år siden afsagde Domstolen en dom i sagen
der sikrede de europæiske markedsaktører og borgerne de nødvendige rettigheder til at spille en afgørende rolle i vores europæiske projekt. De retlige vilkår, som ofrene for overtrædelser af kartel- og monopolreglerne er underlagt i øjeblikket, er ikke acceptable. Jeg har forstået, at der er bred enighed herom. Jeg vil gerne takke for den stimulerende debat her i aften om, hvordan vi gradvis kan forbedre dette retlige miljø, og jeg ser frem til Parlamentets afstemning om betænkningen. Så langt, så godt.
Jeg vil gerne slutte af med to vigtige budskaber. For det første håber jeg, at Parlamentet vil sende et stærkt signal om, at den nuværende situation ikke er acceptabel, og det er sket. Det handler om rettigheder, og Parlamentet har konsekvent bakket op om rettigheder i alle politikker og inden for alle europæiske samarbejdsområder. Vi er nødt til at give de europæiske borgere og de europæiske virksomheder mulighed for at gøre brug af deres rettigheder i henhold til EU's konkurrenceregler. På dette område har EU mulighed for at vise, at det spiller en rolle for borgerne og virksomhederne i dagligdagen.
For det andet vil vi få mulighed for at indføre forbedringer og samtidig undgå de kendte faldgruber gennem samarbejde og dialog, gennem idéer og konstruktiv kritik. Jeg glæder mig til at gå videre i denne proces i forbindelse med offentliggørelsen af hvidbogen ved årsskiftet.
Tak for en interessant debat og en særlig tak til ordføreren, der har arbejdet hårdt med dette vigtige spørgsmål.
Jeg ønsker nu at kommentere et par af de punkter, der er blevet rejst under aftenens debat. Hr. Doorn kom ind på retsgrundlaget. Det er vigtigt og helt tydeligt. Tillad mig at sige, at det er alt for tidligt at drøfte retsgrundlaget med udgangspunkt i en grønbog og på et tidspunkt, hvor der endnu ikke foreligger et forslag fra Kommissionen. Traktaten indeholder passende, specifikke og generelle retsgrundlag for foranstaltninger på dette område. Det kan vi vist blive enige om. Det er imidlertid kun muligt at fastlægge et relevant retsgrundlag og således den relevante procedure på grundlag af karakteren af, målsætningerne for og omfanget af de individuelle foranstaltninger, der muligvis vil blive planlagt gennemført efter udarbejdelsen af hvidbogen. Jeg vil imidlertid overveje, i hvilket omfang det vil være hensigtsmæssigt at behandle de forskelle retsgrundlag i den kommende hvidbog. Der er således stadig noget at tage fat på.
Jeg er opmærksom på, at det er nødvendigt at tage hensyn til nationale procedureregler. Det er helt sikkert. Det er en helt klar advarsel. Med hensyn til egentlig lovgivning har vi allerede harmoniserede europæiske konkurrenceregler, og af naturlige årsager har overtrædelser af kartel- og monopolreglerne grænseoverskridende indvirkning, da de berører vores indre marked, som vi ønsker at beskytte. Jeg mener, at det er hensigtsmæssigt at sikre lige adgang til erstatningssøgsmål i hele det indre marked.
Kommissionen kan udelukkende søge at harmonisere medlemsstaternes procedureregler, hvis de ikke reelt sikrer de materielle rettigheder, der er fastsat i traktaten. Foreslåede foranstaltninger skal være i fuld overensstemmelse med principperne om subsidiaritet, proportionalitet og nødvendighed. Som allerede nævnt vil hvidbogen blive ledsaget af en konsekvensanalyse.
Hr. Evans påpegede, at vi bør undgå at fremme en søgsmålskultur og risikoen for uberettigede krav. Kommissionen fremmer en konkurrencekultur, der er i overensstemmelse med vores nuværende europæiske retskultur. Vi agter at tilstræbe en velovervejet og afbalanceret tilgang, da vi også lægger stor vægt på ikke at åbne op for de urimelige tilstande, der hersker inden for visse retsområder. Vi bør imidlertid ikke lade os styre af frygten. Ingen af den amerikanske kartel- og monopollovgivnings primære kendetegn er foreslået som en valgmulighed i grønbogen.
Mange af de medlemmer, der ønsker at gøre det nemmere at anlægge erstatningssøgsmål, f.eks. fru Bowles, understregede, at vi skal undgå at give de skadelidte fortrinsstilling. De anerkendte imidlertid samtidig, at ofrene i kartel- og monopolsager imidlertid er dårligere stillet i dag, og at der derfor skal gribes ind. Kommissionen tilstræber en velovervejet tilgang, der står i rimeligt forhold til overtrædelsen, og som er udviklet efter høring af de berørte parter.
Fru Wallis kom ind på kollektive erstatningssøgsmål. I lyset af sagsomkostningerne vil den enkelte forbruger sandsynligvis ikke fremsætte små erstatningskrav over for overtræderne af konkurrencereglerne. Vi bør således se på mulighederne for kollektiv bilæggelse af tvister, som hun ganske rigtigt påpegede. I grønbogen behandles spørgsmålet om repræsentative søgsmål anlagt af forbrugerorganisationer. Lad os således gøre det klart - og jeg gentager
søgsmål (
), som dem vi ser i USA, er
på dagsordenen, og de kommer ikke på min dagsorden.
I forbindelse med disse
søgsmål repræsenterer advokaterne en uidentificeret kreds af personer, og de plejer primært egne interesser. I forbindelse med repræsentative søgsmål har advokaterne ingen særskilte interesser, der adskiller sig fra deres skadelidte klienters interesser. Kommissionen mener således, at forbrugernes interesser i højere grad fremmes gennem repræsentative søgsmål end gennem
søgsmål, og jeg håber, at dette også vil berolige fru Berès.
Parlamentets inddragelse er et tegn på vigtigheden af debatten lanceret med denne grønbog, og den giver håb, da vi alle er klar over, at der skal gribes ind på dette område. Dæmonen ligger helt sikkert i detaljen."@da2
".
Herr Präsident, verehrte Abgeordnete! Vor über vierzig Jahren gab der Gerichtshof in der Rechtssache
EU-Marktakteuren und Bürgern die Rechte in die Hand, die sie brauchen, um bei unserem europäischen Aufbauwerk eine zentrale Rolle zu spielen. Das derzeitige rechtliche Umfeld für die Opfer von Verletzungen des Kartellrechts ist nicht hinnehmbar. Wie ich vernehmen konnte, sind sich alle darin einig. Ich danke Ihnen für die anregende Aussprache, die wir am heutigen Nachmittag darüber geführt haben, wie wir dieses rechtliche Umfeld schrittweise verbessern könnten, und sehe der Abstimmung des Parlaments über den Bericht erwartungsvoll entgegen. So weit, so gut.
Ich möchte Ihnen zum Abschluss zwei wesentliche Dinge mit auf den Weg geben. Erstens hoffe ich, dass dieses Hohe Haus sehr deutlich macht, dass die derzeitige Situation nicht akzeptabel ist, denn so habe ich Sie verstanden. Es geht hier um Rechte, und dieses Hohe Haus ist stets ein Verfechter von Rechten in allen Politikbereichen und allen Bereichen der europäischen Zusammenarbeit gewesen. Wir müssen den Bürgern und Unternehmen Europas die Möglichkeit geben, ihre Rechte im Rahmen des europäischen Wettbewerbsrechts auszuüben. Dies ist ein Bereich, in dem die Kommission ihre Bedeutung für den Alltag der Bürger und für die Unternehmen beweisen kann.
Zweitens: Durch Zusammenarbeit im Dialog, durch Ideen und konstruktive Kritik werden wir in der Lage sein, Verbesserungen vorzunehmen und nicht in bereits bekannte Fallen zu tappen. Ich sehe der Fortentwicklung dieses Prozesses mit dem Weißbuch zur Jahreswende erwartungsvoll entgegen.
Ich danke Ihnen für die interessante Aussprache und besonders Ihnen, Herr Berichterstatter, für Ihre intensive Arbeit zu diesem wichtigen Dossier.
Ich möchte auf einige Punkte eingehen, die in der Debatte heute Nachmittag zur Sprache kamen. Herr Doorn warf die Frage der Rechtsgrundlage auf, die natürlich wichtig ist. In der Phase eines Grünbuchs und da kein Kommissionsvorschlag vorliegt, ist eine Diskussion zur Frage der Rechtsgrundlage zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt etwas verfrüht, wenn Sie mir diese Formulierung gestatten. Der Vertrag bietet die geeigneten, konkreten und allgemeinen Rechtsgrundlagen für Maßnahmen in diesem Bereich, und ich denke, darauf könnten wir uns einigen. Eine angemessene Rechtsgrundlage und damit das anwendbare Verfahren kann allerdings nur im Einklang mit der Art, den Zielsetzungen und dem Umfang jeder einzelnen Maßnahme festgelegt werden, die eventuell nach dem Weißbuch ins Auge gefasst wird. Ich werde aber prüfen, inwieweit es sachdienlich sein könnte, im Weißbuch etwas über Rechtsgrundlagen zu sagen. Da sind also noch Überlegungen anzustellen.
Mir ist bewusst, dass man in Bezug auf nationales Verfahrensrecht einfühlsam vorgehen muss. Daran besteht kein Zweifel. Das ist ein ganz klarer Hinweis. Faktisch haben wir bereits ein einheitliches europäisches Wettbewerbsrecht, und Verletzungen des Kartellrechts haben schon ihrem Wesen nach grenzübergreifende Wirkung, weil sie unseren Binnenmarkt betreffen, und um dessen Schutz geht es uns ja. Es ist aus meiner Sicht sinnvoll, dass das Recht auf Entschädigung ebenfalls im gesamten Binnenmarkt durchsetzbar sein muss.
Die Kommission kann eine Annäherung des Verfahrensrechts nur insoweit anstreben, als die Vorschriften der Mitgliedstaaten die mit dem Vertrag übertragenen materiellen Rechte nicht wirksam garantieren. Jede vorgeschlagene Maßnahme müsste der strengen Prüfung auf Einhaltung des Prinzips der Subsidiarität, Verhältnismäßigkeit und Notwendigkeit standhalten. Das Weißbuch wird, wie ich bereits sagte, von einer Folgenabschätzung begleitet sein.
Herr Evans äußerte, dass man vermeiden müsse, eine Klagekultur und die Gefahr unbegründeter Klagen zu begünstigen. Die Kommission unterstützt eine Wettbewerbskultur, die mit unseren bestehenden Rechtskulturen in Europa vereinbar ist. Wir werden einen maßvollen und ausgewogenen Ansatz verfolgen, denn ebenso wie Sie sind auch wir entschlossen zu vermeiden, dass Exzessen Tür und Tor geöffnet wird, wie es sie in einigen anderen Rechtssystemen gibt. Aber Furcht ist ein schlechter Ratgeber. Im Grünbuch wird keines der Hauptmerkmale des US-amerikanischen Kartellprozessrechts als Wahlmöglichkeit angeführt.
Viele Befürworter einer Vereinfachung von Schadenersatzklagen, wie Frau Bowles, haben betont, man müsse vermeiden, dass sich die Waage zu weit in Richtung der Kläger neigt. Doch genau dieselben Redner haben auch eingeräumt, dass sich die Waage zurzeit zuungunsten der Opfer von Kartellrechtsverstößen neigt und dass deshalb Handlungsbedarf besteht. Die Kommission bemüht sich um einen verhältnismäßigen und maßvollen Ansatz, der in Konsultation mit Interessenvertretern entwickelt wird.
Frau Wallis erwähnte Sammelklagen für Schadenersatzansprüche. Angesichts der Kosten eines Rechtsstreits ist unwahrscheinlich, dass einzelne Verbraucher geringfügige Schadenersatzansprüche gegen die Verursacher von Verletzungen des Wettbewerbsrechts einklagen werden. Es lohnt sich also, die Optionen für kollektiven Regress zu prüfen, wie sie zu Recht festgestellt hat. Im Grünbuch werden Stellvertreterklagen von Verbraucherorganisationen beleuchtet. Um es also ganz klar zu sagen – und ich wiederhole mich –: Gruppenklagen mit Ausstiegsmöglichkeit nach Art der USA stehen nicht auf der Tagesordnung und werden nicht auf meiner Agenda stehen.
Bei Gruppenklagen mit Ausstiegsmöglichkeit handeln Rechtsanwälte für eine nicht identifizierte Personengruppe und verfolgen hauptsächlich eigene Interessen. Bei Stellvertreterklagen haben sie kein gesondertes Interesse, das sich von dem der geschädigten Partei unterscheidet, die sie vertreten. Deshalb ist die Kommission der Meinung, dass den Interessen der Verbraucher mit einer Stellvertreterklage besser gedient ist als mit einer Gruppenklage mit Ausstiegsmöglichkeit, und ich hoffe, dass dies auch Frau Berès beruhigt.
Ihre Beteiligung ist ein Zeichen für den Stellenwert der Debatte, die vom Grünbuch angeschoben wurde, und sie gibt Anlasse zur Hoffnung, denn uns allen ist klar, dass hier etwas geschehen muss. Es besteht kein Zweifel: Der Teufel liegt im Detail."@de9
"Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αξιότιμοι βουλευτές, πριν από 40 χρόνια στην υπόθεση
το Δικαστήριο έδωσε στους παράγοντες και τους πολίτες της αγοράς της ΕΕ τα δικαιώματα που χρειάζονταν για να διαδραματίσουν κεντρικό ρόλο στο ευρωπαϊκό μας οικοδόμημα. Το νομικό περιβάλλον στο οποίο βρίσκονται επί του παρόντος τα θύματα των παραβιάσεων των αντιμονοπωλιακών κανόνων είναι απαράδεκτο. Έλαβα το μήνυμα ότι όλοι συμφωνούν επ’ αυτού. Θέλω να σας ευχαριστήσω για την ενδιαφέρουσα αποψινή συζήτηση στο Σώμα σχετικά με το πώς μπορούμε να βελτιώσουμε σταδιακά αυτό το νομικό περιβάλλον, και προσβλέπω στην ψηφοφορία του Κοινοβουλίου για την έκθεση. Έως εδώ, όλα καλά.
Επιτρέψτε μου να ολοκληρώσω την ομιλία μου με δύο βασικά μηνύματα. Πρώτον, ελπίζω ότι το Κοινοβούλιο θα στείλει ένα ισχυρό μήνυμα ότι η τρέχουσα κατάσταση δεν είναι αποδεκτή, και αυτό εξέλαβα από εσάς. Το όλο ζήτημα αφορά τα δικαιώματα, και αυτό το Κοινοβούλιο υπήρξε σταθερός υποστηρικτής των δικαιωμάτων σε όλες τις πολιτικές και τους τομείς ευρωπαϊκής συνεργασίας. Πρέπει να προσφέρουμε στους ευρωπαίους πολίτες και τις ευρωπαϊκές επιχειρήσεις τη δυνατότητα να ασκούν τα δικαιώματά τους βάσει των ευρωπαϊκών νόμων περί ανταγωνισμού. Αυτός είναι ένας τομέας στον οποίο η Κοινότητα μπορεί να αποδείξει την αξία της στην καθημερινή ζωή των πολιτών και των επιχειρήσεων.
Δεύτερον, μέσω της συνεργασίας στο πλαίσιο του διαλόγου, μέσω των ιδεών και της εποικοδομητικής κριτικής, θα μπορέσουμε να προβούμε σε βελτιώσεις, αποφεύγοντας παράλληλα τις γνωστές παγίδες. Αδημονώ να προωθήσω περαιτέρω αυτήν τη διαδικασία για τη Λευκή Βίβλο με την αλλαγή του χρόνου.
Σας ευχαριστώ για την ενδιαφέρουσα συζήτηση και ευχαριστώ εσάς ιδιαίτερα, κύριε εισηγητή, για το επίπονο έργο σας σχετικά με αυτό το σημαντικό θέμα.
Θέλω τώρα, όμως, να απαντήσω σε ορισμένα θέματα που τέθηκαν στην αποψινή μας συζήτηση. Ο κ. Doorn έθεσε το ζήτημα της νομικής βάσης. Αυτό είναι σημαντικό και αρκετά σαφές. Στο στάδιο μιας Πράσινης Βίβλου, και ελλείψει πρότασης της Επιτροπής, είναι μάλλον πρόωρο, εάν μου επιτρέπετε την έκφραση, να συζητούμε το ζήτημα της νομικής βάσης σε αυτό το στάδιο. Η Συνθήκη παρέχει κατάλληλες, ειδικές και γενικές νομικές βάσεις για μέτρα σε αυτόν τον τομέα και φαντάζομαι ότι μπορούμε να συμφωνήσουμε ως προς αυτό. Εντούτοις, μια κατάλληλη βάση, και συνεπώς η εφαρμοστέα διαδικασία, μπορεί να προσδιοριστεί μόνον σύμφωνα με τον χαρακτήρα, τους στόχους και το πεδίο εφαρμογής οποιουδήποτε επιμέρους μέτρου που προβλέπεται ενδεχομένως στη Λευκή Βίβλο. Θα εξετάσω, ωστόσο, τον βαθμό στον οποίο ενδείκνυται να ειπωθεί κάτι για τις νομικές βάσεις στην επικείμενη Λευκή Βίβλο. Συνεπώς, θα χρειαστεί να επανέλθουμε σε αυτό το σημείο.
Έχω επίγνωση της ανάγκης για ευαισθησία όσον αφορά τους εθνικούς διαδικαστικούς κανόνες. Δεν υπάρχει αμφιβολία επ’ αυτού. Αποτελεί αρκετά σαφή προειδοποίηση. Επί της ουσίας, έχουμε ήδη ένα ενιαίο ευρωπαϊκό δίκαιο ανταγωνισμού, και λόγω της ίδιας της φύσης τους, οι παραβιάσεις των αντιμονοπωλιακών κανόνων έχουν διασυνοριακό αντίκτυπο, επειδή επηρεάζουν την εσωτερική αγορά μας, και αυτό ακριβώς προστατεύουμε. Θεωρώ λογικό ότι το δικαίωμα αποζημίωσης θα έπρεπε να είναι εξίσου εφαρμοστέο σε ολόκληρη την εσωτερική αγορά μας.
Μόνον στον βαθμό που οι διαδικαστικοί κανόνες των κρατών μελών δεν εγγυώνται αποτελεσματικά τα ουσιαστικά δικαιώματα που εκχωρούνται από τη Συνθήκη μπορεί η Επιτροπή να επιδιώξει κάποια σύγκλιση αυτών των κανόνων. Οποιαδήποτε μέτρα προταθούν πρέπει να πληρούν τα αυστηρά κριτήρια της επικουρικότητας, της αναλογικότητας και της αναγκαιότητας. Η Λευκή Βίβλος θα συνοδεύεται από εκτίμηση επιπτώσεων, όπως έχω ήδη πει.
Ο κ. Evans ανέφερε την ανάγκη να αποφευχθούν η ενθάρρυνση του πνεύματος δικομανίας και ο κίνδυνος άσκησης αβάσιμων αγωγών. Η Επιτροπή ενθαρρύνει ένα πνεύμα ανταγωνισμού συμβατό με τις υπάρχουσες ευρωπαϊκές νομικές νοοτροπίες. Θα ακολουθήσουμε μια προσεγμένη και ισορροπημένη προσέγγιση, επειδή, όπως εσείς, είμαστε αποφασισμένοι να αποφύγουμε το άνοιγμα της πόρτας στις υπερβολές που έχουν βιώσει ορισμένες άλλες δικαστικές αρχές. Ο φόβος είναι, όμως, πολύ κακός σύμβουλος. Κανένα από τα βασικά χαρακτηριστικά της δικαστικής αντιπαράθεσης για παραβίαση των αντιμονοπωλιακών κανόνων των ΗΠΑ δεν προτείνεται ως εναλλακτική επιλογή στην Πράσινη Βίβλο.
Πολλοί από όσους υποστηρίζουν τη διευκόλυνση των αγωγών αποζημιώσεων, όπως η κ. Bowles, τόνισαν την ανάγκη να μην γείρει η πλάστιγγα πολύ προς το μέρος των προσφευγόντων. Εντούτοις, αυτοί οι ίδιοι σχολιαστές αναγνώρισαν επίσης ότι η πλάστιγγα γέρνει επί του παρόντος εις βάρος των θυμάτων παραβιάσεων των αντιμονοπωλιακών κανόνων και, συνεπώς, ότι πρέπει να γίνει κάτι. Η Επιτροπή αγωνίζεται για μία ανάλογη και προσεγμένη προσέγγιση η οποία θα αναπτυχθεί σε διαβούλευση με τους ενδιαφερόμενους.
Η κ. Wallis ανέφερε τις συλλογικές αγωγές αποζημίωσης. Δεδομένου του κόστους της δικαστικής αντιπαράθεσης, είναι απίθανον μεμονωμένοι καταναλωτές να ασκήσουν αγωγές αποζημιώσεων μικρής αξίας σε βάρος των παραβατών του δικαίου του ανταγωνισμού. Συνεπώς, αξίζει να εξεταστούν επιλογές συλλογικής προσφυγής, όπως ορθώς ανέφερε. Στην Πράσινη Βίβλο εξετάζεται το ενδεχόμενο άσκησης αντιπροσωπευτικών αγωγών από οργανώσεις καταναλωτών. Ας είμαστε λοιπόν σαφείς –και το επαναλαμβάνω– οι απρόσωπες συλλογικές αγωγές αμερικανικού τύπου
περιλαμβάνονται και δεν πρόκειται να συμπεριληφθούν στις επιδιώξεις μου.
Στις απρόσωπες συλλογικές αγωγές, οι δικηγόροι ενεργούν εξ ονόματος μιας απροσδιόριστης ομάδας ατόμων και κυρίως προασπίζουν τα δικά τους συμφέροντα. Στις αντιπροσωπευτικές αγωγές, οι τελευταίοι δεν έχουν ξεχωριστά συμφέροντα διαφορετικά από τα συμφέροντα των θιγόμενων πλευρών που εκπροσωπούν τους ζημιωθέντες. Η Επιτροπή πιστεύει, συνεπώς, ότι τα συμφέροντα των καταναλωτών εξυπηρετούνται καλύτερα μέσω μιας αντιπροσωπευτικής αγωγής παρά μέσω μιας απρόσωπης συλλογικής αγωγής, και ελπίζω ότι αυτό θα καθησυχάσει επίσης την κ. Berès.
Η συμμετοχή σας αποδεικνύει τη σημασία της συζήτησης που ξεκίνησε από την Πράσινη Βίβλο και δημιουργεί ελπίδες, καθώς όλοι γνωρίζουμε ότι πρέπει κάτι να γίνει. Δεν υπάρχει αμφιβολία γι’ αυτό: η δυσκολία έγκειται στις λεπτομέρειες."@el10
".
Señor Presidente, Señorías, hace más de 40 años, en el asunto
el Tribunal otorgó a los ciudadanos y partícipes del mercado de la UE los derechos que necesitaban para desempeñar un papel esencial en nuestro proyecto Europeo. El entorno jurídico en que se encuentran las víctimas de las infracciones de la normativa de defensa de la competencia no es aceptable. Tomo nota de que todos estamos de acuerdo en esto. Quisiera darles las gracias por el estimulante debate de esta noche sobre cómo deberíamos mejorar gradualmente este entorno jurídico, y espero con interés la votación del Parlamento sobre el informe. Hasta ahí, todo en orden.
Quisiera transmitirles dos mensajes fundamentales. En primer lugar, espero que esta Asamblea transmita una señal firme de que la situación actual no es aceptable y esto es lo que he deducido de lo que han dicho ustedes. Hablamos de derechos y esta Asamblea ha apoyado sistemáticamente los derechos en todas las políticas y todos los ámbitos de la cooperación europea. Debemos dar a los ciudadanos europeos y a las empresas europeas la capacidad para ejercer sus derechos dentro de las leyes europeas de defensa de la competencia. Se trata de un ámbito en el que la Comunidad puede demostrar su influencia en la vida cotidiana de los ciudadanos y las empresas.
En segundo lugar, cooperando en el diálogo, aportando ideas y ejerciendo la crítica constructiva, podremos introducir mejoras al tiempo que evitaremos las trampas conocidas. Espero que este proceso avance con el Libro Blanco a finales de año.
Gracias por el interesante debate y gracias especialmente al ponente por su esfuerzo en relación con este importante expediente.
A continuación quisiera responder a algunas cuestiones planteadas en nuestro debate de esta noche. El señor Doorn ha mencionado el tema del fundamento jurídico. Esto es importante y está bastante claro. En la fase de un Libro Verde y en ausencia de propuestas de la Comisión, es muy prematuro, si me permiten decirlo así, debatir la cuestión del fundamento jurídico en este momento. El Tratado ofrece fundamentos jurídicos adecuados, específicos y generales para la adopción de medidas en este terreno y me imagino que podríamos estar de acuerdo al respecto. Sin embargo, un fundamento pertinente, y por lo tanto el procedimiento aplicable, solamente puede definirse en función de la naturaleza, los objetivos y el ámbito de aplicación de toda medida individual que pueda plantearse tras el Libro Blanco. Sin embargo, examinaré la cuestión de hasta qué punto puede ser conveniente decir algo sobre los fundamentos jurídicos en el próximo Libro Blanco. Por lo tanto, sigue habiendo algo que examinar.
Soy consciente de la necesidad de no olvidar las normas de procedimiento nacionales, de eso no cabe ninguna duda. Se trata de una advertencia muy clara. En esencia, ya tenemos un Derecho europeo uniforme en materia de competencia y, por su propia naturaleza, las infracciones de las normas de defensa de la competencia tienen un efecto transfronterizo, ya que afectan a nuestro mercado interior, y eso es lo que estamos protegiendo. Para mí tiene sentido que el derecho de indemnización también sea aplicable en todo nuestro mercado interior.
La Comisión solamente podrá buscar cierta aproximación de las normas en la medida en que las normas procesales de los Estados miembros no garanticen efectivamente los derechos sustantivos que confiere el Tratado. Toda medida propuesta tendría que cumplir los estrictos criterios de subsidiariedad, proporcionalidad y necesidad. El Libro Blanco irá acompañado de una evaluación de impacto, como ya he dicho.
El señor Evans ha mencionado la necesidad de evitar el fomento de una cultura del litigio y el riesgo de que se incoen demandas injustificadas. La Comisión promueve una cultura de la competencia compatible con nuestras culturas jurídicas europeas existentes. Buscaremos un enfoque comedido y equilibrado, ya que, al igual que ustedes, nuestro deseo es no abrir la puerta a los excesos que han experimentado otras jurisdicciones. Pero el miedo es mal consejero. En el Libro Verde no se propone ninguna de las principales características de la litigación estadounidense en materia de competencia.
Muchos de los que apoyan facilitar las acciones por daños y perjuicios, como la señora Bowles, han destacado la necesidad de evitar inclinar demasiado la balanza a favor de los demandantes. Sin embargo, ellos mismos han reconocido que en la actualidad la balanza se inclina en contra de las víctimas de las infracciones de la normativa de defensa de la competencia, y que por lo tanto es preciso tomar medidas. La Comisión aspira a un enfoque proporcionado y comedido, desarrollado después de consultar con las partes interesadas.
La señora Wallis ha mencionado las acciones colectivas por daños y perjuicios. Dados los costes procesales, es poco probable que los consumidores incoen demandas por daños y perjuicios de escasa cuantía contra los infractores de la normativa de defensa de la competencia. Por ello merece la pena analizar las opciones de demanda colectiva, como ha señalado con acierto. El Libro Verde examina las acciones populares incoadas por organizaciones de consumidores. Para que quede claros, repito que las acciones colectivas con exclusión voluntaria al estilo estadounidense
están en el programa ni estarán en el mío.
En estas acciones colectivas con exclusión voluntaria, los abogados actúan en nombre de una categoría de personas sin identificar y defienden principalmente sus propios intereses. En las acciones populares, no tienen intereses independientes distintos de los de las partes afectadas a las que representan. Por lo tanto, la Comisión cree que se atienden mejor los intereses de los consumidores mediante una acción popular que mediante una acción colectiva con exclusión voluntaria, y espero que esto también tranquilice a la señora Berès.
Su implicación refleja la importancia del debate iniciado por el Libro Verde y es motivo de esperanza, ya que todos somos conscientes de que algo hay que hacer. No cabe ninguna duda al respecto: el problema está en el detalle."@es21
"Mr President, honourable Members, over 40 years ago in
the Court gave EU market players and citizens the rights they need to play a central role in our European project. The legal environment in which the victims of antitrust infringements currently find themselves is not acceptable. I got the message that everybody agrees on that. I would like to thank you for the stimulating debate here this evening on how we might gradually improve this legal environment, and I look forward to Parliament’s vote on the report. So far, so good.
I should like to leave you with two key messages. First, I hope that this House will send out a strong signal that the current situation is not acceptable and that is what I have got from you. This is all about rights, and this House has been a consistent supporter of rights across all policies and all areas of European cooperation. We have to give European citizens and European businesses the ability to exercise their rights under European competition laws. This is an area in which the Community can show its relevance to the daily life of citizens and to business.
Second, it is by working together in dialogue, through ideas and constructive criticism, that we will be able to make improvements, at the same time avoiding the known pitfalls. I look forward to taking this process forward with the White Paper at the turn of the year.
Thank you for the interesting debate and thank you especially, rapporteur, for your hard work on this important file.
I would now like to respond to a few issues raised in our debate this evening. Mr Doorn raised the question of legal base. That is important and quite clear. At the stage of a Green Paper, and in the absence of any Commission proposal, it is rather premature, if you will allow me to say so, to discuss the question of legal base at this stage. The Treaty offers appropriate, specific and general legal bases for measures in this area and I imagine that we could agree upon that. However, a pertinent base, and hence the applicable procedure, can only be identified in line with the nature, objectives and scope of any individual measure possibly envisaged after the White Paper. I will, however, consider the extent to which it may be appropriate to say something about legal bases in the forthcoming White Paper. So, there is still something to look at there.
I am aware of the need to be sensitive as regards national procedural rules. There is no doubt about that. That is quite a clear warning. On substance, we already have one uniform European competition law, and by their very nature, breaches of the antitrust rules have a cross-border impact because they affect our internal market, and that is what we are protecting. It makes sense to me that the right to compensation should also be equally enforceable throughout our internal market.
It is only to the extent that the procedural rules of the Member States do not guarantee effectively the substantive rights conferred by the Treaty that the Commission may seek some approximation of these rules. Any measures proposed would have to meet the strict tests of subsidiarity, proportionality and necessity. The White Paper will be accompanied by an impact assessment, as I have already said.
Mr Evans mentioned the need to avoid encouraging a litigation culture and the risk of unmerited claims being brought. The Commission is encouraging a competition culture compatible with our existing European legal cultures. We will pursue a measured and balanced approach, because like you, we are determined to avoid opening the door to the excesses which some other jurisdictions have experienced. But fear is a very bad adviser. None of the key characteristics of US antitrust litigation is suggested as an option in the Green Paper.
Many of those of support facilitating damage actions, like Mrs Bowles, stressed the need to avoid tilting the scales too much in favour of claimants. However, these same commentators also recognised that the scales are currently tipped against the victims of antitrust damages, and hence that something should be done. The Commission is striving for a proportionate and measured approach developed in consultation with stakeholders.
Mrs Wallis mentioned collective actions for damages claims. Given the costs of litigation, it is unlikely that individual consumers will bring small-value damages claims against the perpetrators of competition law infringements. So it is worth looking at options for collective redress, as she rightly mentioned. The Green Paper looks at representative actions brought by consumer organisations. So let us be clear – and I repeat – US-style opt-out class actions are
on the agenda and will not be on my agenda.
In opt-out class actions, lawyers act on behalf of an unidentified class of persons and mainly pursue their own interests. In representative actions, the latter have no separate interest different from that of the injured parties they represent. The Commission thus believes that the interests of consumers are better served by a representative action than by an opt-out class action, and I hope this will also reassure Mrs Berès.
Your involvement signals the importance of the debate launched by the Green Paper, and is a reason for hope, as we are all aware that there is something to be done. There is no doubt about it: the devil is in the detail."@et5
"Arvoisa puhemies, hyvät parlamentin jäsenet, yhteisöjen tuomioistuin antoi yli 40 vuotta sitten asiassa van Gend [amp] Loos EU:n markkinatoimijoille ja kansalaisille niiden tarvitsemat oikeudet, joiden ansiosta ne ovat saaneet keskeisen aseman Euroopan yhdentymishankkeessa. Kilpailusääntöjen rikkomisen uhrien nykyinen oikeusasema on kestämätön, mistä kaikki ovat näköjään yhtä mieltä. Haluan kiittää teitä tämäniltaisesta piristävästä keskustelusta siitä, kuinka voisimme vähitellen parantaa heidän oikeusasemaansa. Odotan kiinnostuneena parlamentin äänestävän mietinnöstä. Tässä vaiheessa näyttää hyvältä.
Haluan kertoa teille kaksi olennaista asiaa. Toivon ensinnäkin, että parlamentti lähettää vahvan viestin siitä, ettei se hyväksy nykytilannetta, ja tällaisen käsityksen olenkin saanut tänään. Kyse on oikeuksista, ja parlamentti on säännöllisesti tukenut niitä kaikilla EU:n politiikan ja yhteistyön aloilla. Euroopan kansalaisille ja yrityksille on annettava mahdollisuus käyttää EU:n kilpailulainsäädännön nojalla niille kuuluvia oikeuksia. Tällä alalla yhteisö voi osoittaa merkityksensä kansalaisten ja yritysten päivittäisen olemassaolon kannalta.
Toiseksi saamme aikaan parannuksia tekemällä yhteistyötä, keskustelemalla keskenämme sekä esittämällä ajatuksia ja rakentavaa kritiikkiä. Näin vältämme tunnetut sudenkuopat. Odotan innostuneena prosessin etenemistä, kun valkoinen kirja julkaistaan vuoden vaihteessa.
Kiitos mielenkiintoisesta keskustelusta. Kiitän erityisesti myös esittelijää hänen ahkerasta työstään tärkeän asian parissa.
Vastaan nyt joihinkin tämäniltaisessa keskustelussa esitettyihin kysymyksiin. Jäsen Doorn käsitteli oikeusperustaa. Se on tärkeä asia, ja perusta on selvä. Saanen huomauttaa, että vihreän kirjan vaiheessa, kun komissio ei vielä ole esittänyt ehdotustaan, on vielä ennenaikaista keskustella oikeusperustasta. Perustamissopimus sisältää asianmukaisia, täsmällisiä ja yleisiä oikeusperustoja tämän alan toimille, mistä olemme varmastikin samaa mieltä. Päätös sopivasta oikeusperustasta ja sitä kautta sovellettavasta menettelystä voidaan kuitenkin tehdä vasta, kun tiedetään, millaisia yksittäisiä toimia valkoisen kirjan julkaisemisen jälkeen suunnitellaan ja mitkä niiden tavoitteet ja soveltamisala ovat. Pohdin kuitenkin, minkä verran tulevassa valkoisessa kirjassa on mahdollista sanoa oikeusperustasta. Asiaa on siis vielä tutkittava.
Olen tietoinen siitä, että kansalliset menettelysäännöt on otettava huomioon. Siitä ei ole epäilystäkään. Varoitus on selkeä. Mikä tärkeintä, voimassa on jo yksi yhtenäinen eurooppalainen kilpailulainsäädäntö, ja kilpailusääntöjen rikkomisen vaikutukset ovat luonteeltaan rajat ylittäviä, sillä ne vaikuttavat koko sisämarkkinoihin, jonka toimintaa pyrimme suojaamaan. Pidän järkevänä sitä, että oikeus korvaukseen on pystyttävä turvaamaan koko sisämarkkinoilla.
Komissio voi pyrkiä lähentämään sääntöjä ainoastaan silloin, jos jäsenvaltioiden menettelysäännöt eivät takaa tehokkaasti perustamissopimuksessa taattuja aineellisia oikeuksia. Ehdotettujen toimenpiteiden on täytettävä toissijaisuuden, suhteellisuuden ja tarpeellisuuden kriteerit. Valkoiseen kirjaan sisältyy vaikutusten arviointi, kuten aiemmin totesin.
Jäsen Evans mainitsi, että käräjöintikulttuurin syntymistä ja perusteettomien kanteiden esittämistä on vältettävä. Komissio tukee nykyisiin eurooppalaisiin oikeuskulttuureihin sopivan kilpailukulttuurin syntymistä. Sovellamme oikeasuhtaista ja tasapainoista lähestymistapaa, sillä olemme teidän laillanne päättäneet välttää ylilyönnit, joita on havaittu joillakin muilla lainkäyttöalueilla. Pelkoa ei kuitenkaan saa pitää perusteena toimille. Vihreässä kirjassa ei esitetä vaihtoehtona mitään Yhdysvaltojen kilpailualan oikeudenkäyntikulttuurin olennaisia piirteitä.
Useat korvauskanteiden helpottamista tukevat henkilöt, kuten jäsen Bowles, korostivat sitä, ettei tasapainoa pidä horjuttaa liikaa kantajien eduksi. Samaiset henkilöt totesivat kuitenkin, että tällä hetkellä kilpailusääntöjen rikkomisesta kärsineiden asema on heikko ja että jotakin olisi tehtävä. Komissio pyrkii löytämään oikeasuhtaisen ja harkitun toimintatavan sidosryhmiä kuulemalla.
Jäsen Wallis mainitsi ryhmäkorvauskanteet. Oikeudenkäynnit ovat kalliita, joten on epätodennäköistä, että yksittäiset kuluttajat nostaisivat arvoltaan vähäisiä korvauskanteita kilpailusääntöjen rikkojia vastaan. Siksi on tarpeen tutkia mahdollisuuksia ryhmäkantaisiin, kuten jäsen perustellusti totesi. Vihreässä kirjassa tarkastellaan kuluttajajärjestöjen nostamia edustajakanteita. Haluan siis tehdä vielä kerran selväksi, että Yhdysvalloista tutut ryhmäkanteet, joista kantajat voivat perääntyä
ole asialistalla eivätkä ne tulekaan omalle asialistalleni.
Ryhmäkanteissa, joista kantajat voivat perääntyä, asianajajat edustavat nimeämätöntä kantajajoukkoa ja ajavat pääasiassa omia etujaan, kun taas edustajakanteissa edustajat ajavat edustamiensa, vahinkoa kärsineiden osapuolten asiaa. Komissio katsookin, että edustajakanteet ovat enemmän kuluttajien edun mukaisia kuin yhteiskanteet, ja toivon, että myös jäsen Beres on vakuuttunut tästä.
Kiinnostuksenne on osoitus vihreällä kirjalla käynnistetyn keskustelun merkityksestä, ja se antaa aihetta toivoon, sillä tiedämme kaikki, että jotain on tehtävä. Ei ole epäilystäkään, etteivätkö yksityiskohdat olisi hyvin tärkeitä."@fi7
"Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les Députés, il y a 40 ans, dans l’affaire
la Cour de justice a donné aux acteurs du marché et aux citoyens européens les droits qui leur étaient nécessaires pour jouer un rôle central dans notre projet européen. L’environnement juridique dans lequel se trouvent à ce jour les victimes d’ententes ou d’abus de position dominante n’est pas acceptable. J’ai bien compris que tout le monde s’accorde sur ce point. Je souhaiterais vous remercier pour le débat enrichissant de ce soir sur les moyens qui permettraient d’améliorer progressivement cet environnement juridique, et je me réjouis du vote du Parlement sur le rapport. La question est réglée sur ce point.
Je souhaiterais enfin faire passer deux messages fondamentaux. En premier lieu, j’espère que cette Assemblée donnera le signal ferme que la situation actuelle n’est pas acceptable - et c’est d’ailleurs ce que j’ai compris dans vos propos. Il s’agit purement d’une question de droits, et le Parlement a toujours soutenu sans relâche les droits dans toutes les politiques et tous les domaines de la coopération européenne. Nous devons procurer aux citoyens européens et aux entreprises européennes la possibilité d’exercer les droits qui leur sont conférés par la législation européenne sur la concurrence. Nous sommes en outre dans un domaine dans lequel la Communauté peut témoigner de son utilité pour l’existence quotidienne des citoyens et des entreprises.
Deuxièmement, c’est en travaillant ensemble dans le dialogue, par le biais d’idées et de critiques constructives, que nous réussirons à apporter des améliorations tout en contournant les pièges connus. Je suis impatiente de poursuivre le processus plus avant avec la publication du livre blanc au début de l’année prochaine.
Merci pour ce débat intéressant et merci spécialement, Monsieur le Rapporteur, pour le travail ardu consacré à cet important dossier.
Je souhaiterais à présent répondre à quelques remarques formulées lors de notre débat de ce soir. M. Doorn a soulevé la question de la base juridique. Elle est importante et tout à fait claire. Au stade d’un livre vert, et en l’absence d’une proposition de la Commission, il est relativement prématuré - si vous me permettez l’expression - de se pencher sur la question de la base juridique. Le Traité offre des bases juridiques appropriées, d’ordre spécifique et général, pour l’adoption de mesures dans ce domaine et je suppose que nous pourrions en convenir. Une base pertinente et, partant, la procédure applicable, peuvent toutefois uniquement être identifiées à la lumière de la nature, des objectifs et de la portée de toute mesure particulière qui pourrait être envisagée après le livre blanc. J’examinerai néanmoins à quel point il pourrait être opportun d’intégrer un commentaire sur les bases juridiques dans le prochain livre blanc. Il subsiste donc un point à éclaircir à cet égard.
Je suis consciente de l’impératif de circonspection en ce qui concerne les règles nationales de procédure. Aucun doute ne plane à ce sujet. Il s’agit d’un avertissement sans équivoque. En substance, nous possédons d’ores et déjà une législation européenne uniforme sur la concurrence et, par sa nature même, toute infraction aux règles sur les ententes et les abus de position dominante s’accompagne de répercussions transfrontalières en ce qu’elle affecte notre marché intérieur, que nous cherchons précisément à protéger. Il me paraît relever du bon sens que le droit à une indemnisation puisse également être appliqué de la même manière à travers l’ensemble de notre marché intérieur.
La Commission peut uniquement tendre à une harmonisation des dispositions dans la mesure où les règles de procédure des États membres ne garantissent pas efficacement les droits essentiels conférés par le Traité. Toute mesure proposée devrait passer les épreuves implacables de la subsidiarité, de la proportionnalité et de la nécessité. Ainsi que je l’ai indiqué tout à l’heure, le livre blanc s’accompagnera d’une étude d’impact.
M. Evans a mentionné la nécessité de se garder de favoriser une culture du procès et le risque que des prétentions injustifiées soient réclamées. La Commission encourage une culture de la concurrence compatible avec nos cultures juridiques européennes existantes. Nous mettrons en œuvre une approche mesurée et équilibrée parce que, tout comme vous, nous sommes résolus à éviter d’ouvrir la porte aux excès auxquels certaines autres juridictions ont assisté. Mais la peur est une très mauvaise conseillère. Aucune des caractéristiques essentielles du régime judiciaire américain relatif aux ententes et aux abus de position dominante n’est citée parmi les solutions potentielles dans le livre vert.
Bon nombre des partisans d’une simplification des actions en dommages et intérêts, à l’instar de Mme Bowles, ont insisté sur la nécessité de prévenir que la balance ne penche excessivement du côté des demandeurs. Ces mêmes observateurs ont toutefois également reconnu que les victimes d’ententes et d’abus de position dominante ne pèsent pas lourd à l’heure actuelle dans la balance et, par conséquent, qu’une intervention s’impose. La Commission aspire à une approche proportionnée et mesurée, élaborée en consultation avec les acteurs concernés.
Mme Wallis a abordé les actions collectives en demandes de dommages et intérêts. Eu égard aux coûts d’une procédure judiciaire, il est peu probable que des consommateurs isolés introduisent des prétentions en dommages et intérêts de faible montant contre les auteurs d’une infraction au droit de la concurrence. Il est donc opportun d’examiner les possibilités de recours collectif, ainsi qu’elle l’a affirmé à juste titre. Le livre vert traite des actions représentatives menées par des associations de consommateurs. Soyons donc clairs: je le répète, les actions de groupe avec possibilité d’exclusion de type américain
à l’ordre du jour et je ne les inscrirai pas à mon ordre du jour.
Dans les actions de groupe avec possibilité d’exclusion, les avocats agissent au nom d’un groupe indéterminé de personnes et poursuivent principalement leurs propres intérêts. Dans les actions représentatives, ils n’ont aucun intérêt distinct en dehors de l’intérêt des parties lésées qu’ils représentent. La Commission estime dès lors que les intérêts des consommateurs sont mieux desservis par une action représentative que par une action de groupe avec possibilité d’exclusion, et j’espère que cela rassurera également Mme Berès.
Votre engagement illustre l’importance du débat initié par le livre vert et il représente une source d’espoir dès lors que nous savons tous qu’il faut faire quelque chose. À n’en pas douter, le diable est dans le détail."@fr8
"Mr President, honourable Members, over 40 years ago in
the Court gave EU market players and citizens the rights they need to play a central role in our European project. The legal environment in which the victims of antitrust infringements currently find themselves is not acceptable. I got the message that everybody agrees on that. I would like to thank you for the stimulating debate here this evening on how we might gradually improve this legal environment, and I look forward to Parliament’s vote on the report. So far, so good.
I should like to leave you with two key messages. First, I hope that this House will send out a strong signal that the current situation is not acceptable and that is what I have got from you. This is all about rights, and this House has been a consistent supporter of rights across all policies and all areas of European cooperation. We have to give European citizens and European businesses the ability to exercise their rights under European competition laws. This is an area in which the Community can show its relevance to the daily life of citizens and to business.
Second, it is by working together in dialogue, through ideas and constructive criticism, that we will be able to make improvements, at the same time avoiding the known pitfalls. I look forward to taking this process forward with the White Paper at the turn of the year.
Thank you for the interesting debate and thank you especially, rapporteur, for your hard work on this important file.
I would now like to respond to a few issues raised in our debate this evening. Mr Doorn raised the question of legal base. That is important and quite clear. At the stage of a Green Paper, and in the absence of any Commission proposal, it is rather premature, if you will allow me to say so, to discuss the question of legal base at this stage. The Treaty offers appropriate, specific and general legal bases for measures in this area and I imagine that we could agree upon that. However, a pertinent base, and hence the applicable procedure, can only be identified in line with the nature, objectives and scope of any individual measure possibly envisaged after the White Paper. I will, however, consider the extent to which it may be appropriate to say something about legal bases in the forthcoming White Paper. So, there is still something to look at there.
I am aware of the need to be sensitive as regards national procedural rules. There is no doubt about that. That is quite a clear warning. On substance, we already have one uniform European competition law, and by their very nature, breaches of the antitrust rules have a cross-border impact because they affect our internal market, and that is what we are protecting. It makes sense to me that the right to compensation should also be equally enforceable throughout our internal market.
It is only to the extent that the procedural rules of the Member States do not guarantee effectively the substantive rights conferred by the Treaty that the Commission may seek some approximation of these rules. Any measures proposed would have to meet the strict tests of subsidiarity, proportionality and necessity. The White Paper will be accompanied by an impact assessment, as I have already said.
Mr Evans mentioned the need to avoid encouraging a litigation culture and the risk of unmerited claims being brought. The Commission is encouraging a competition culture compatible with our existing European legal cultures. We will pursue a measured and balanced approach, because like you, we are determined to avoid opening the door to the excesses which some other jurisdictions have experienced. But fear is a very bad adviser. None of the key characteristics of US antitrust litigation is suggested as an option in the Green Paper.
Many of those of support facilitating damage actions, like Mrs Bowles, stressed the need to avoid tilting the scales too much in favour of claimants. However, these same commentators also recognised that the scales are currently tipped against the victims of antitrust damages, and hence that something should be done. The Commission is striving for a proportionate and measured approach developed in consultation with stakeholders.
Mrs Wallis mentioned collective actions for damages claims. Given the costs of litigation, it is unlikely that individual consumers will bring small-value damages claims against the perpetrators of competition law infringements. So it is worth looking at options for collective redress, as she rightly mentioned. The Green Paper looks at representative actions brought by consumer organisations. So let us be clear – and I repeat – US-style opt-out class actions are
on the agenda and will not be on my agenda.
In opt-out class actions, lawyers act on behalf of an unidentified class of persons and mainly pursue their own interests. In representative actions, the latter have no separate interest different from that of the injured parties they represent. The Commission thus believes that the interests of consumers are better served by a representative action than by an opt-out class action, and I hope this will also reassure Mrs Berès.
Your involvement signals the importance of the debate launched by the Green Paper, and is a reason for hope, as we are all aware that there is something to be done. There is no doubt about it: the devil is in the detail."@hu11
".
Signor Presidente, onorevoli deputati, più di quarant’anni fa, con la causa Van Gend [amp] Loos, la Corte di giustizia ha concesso ai cittadini e ai soggetti che agiscono sul mercato dell’Unione europea i diritti necessari per svolgere una funzione essenziale nel progetto europeo. L’ambiente giuridico in cui devono muoversi oggi le vittime di violazioni delle norme
è inaccettabile; ho compreso chiaramente che su questo punto siamo tutti d’accordo. Vi ringrazio per lo stimolante dibattito di questa sera sulle modalità per migliorare gradualmente tale ambiente giuridico, e attendo con interesse il voto del Parlamento sulla relazione. Fin qui, tutto bene.
La vostra partecipazione conferma l’importanza del dibattito avviato dal Libro verde; tale risultato è di buon auspicio, perché sappiamo bene che è necessario agire. Non c’è dubbio: il diavolo si nasconde nei dettagli.
Vorrei concludere sottolineando due aspetti importanti. In primo luogo, spero che la vostra Assemblea voglia affermare con forza che la situazione attuale non è accettabile, e tale appunto è il segnale che ho ricevuto da voi. Questa è essenzialmente una questione di diritti, e il Parlamento europeo è sempre stato il coerente paladino dei diritti in tutte le politiche e in tutti i settori della cooperazione europea. Dobbiamo fornire ai cittadini e alle imprese d’Europa la possibilità di esercitare i propri diritti in base al diritto comunitario della concorrenza; in questo campo la Comunità può dimostrare la propria importanza per la vita quotidiana dei cittadini e delle imprese.
In secondo luogo, solo lavorando insieme in un dialogo intessuto di idee e critiche costruttive potremo produrre miglioramenti ed evitare al tempo stesso i noti trabocchetti. Sono ansiosa di portare avanti questo processo per mezzo del Libro bianco, verso la fine dell’anno.
Ringrazio tutti per lo stimolante dibattito, ma ringrazio specialmente il relatore per l’arduo lavoro che ha compiuto su un tema così importante.
Vorrei rispondere ora ad alcuni interrogativi emersi nel dibattito di questa sera; l’onorevole Doorn ha sollevato il problema della base giuridica. E’ una questione importante e precisa; in fase di Libro verde, e in mancanza di qualsiasi proposta da parte della Commissione, è alquanto prematuro – se così posso esprimermi – discutere a questo punto il problema della base giuridica. Il Trattato offre le opportune basi giuridiche – di carattere specifico e generale – per le misure da prendere in questo campo; mi sembra che in proposito potremmo trovare un accordo. Tuttavia, sarà possibile individuare la base giuridica più adeguata – e di conseguenza le procedure da impiegare – solo in armonia con la natura, gli obiettivi, e la portata di qualsiasi singola misura eventualmente prevista in conseguenza del Libro bianco. Esaminerò, tuttavia, in che misura sia possibile inserire qualche accenno alle basi giuridiche nell’imminente Libro bianco; in questo campo, quindi, vi sono ancora dei punti da verificare.
“
Comprendo bene la necessità di agire con estrema cautela in merito alle norme procedurali nazionali. Su questo non c’è dubbio: il messaggio è chiaro. Sostanzialmente esiste già un diritto europeo uniforme in materia di concorrenza; inoltre, per la loro stessa natura, le violazioni delle norme
hanno un impatto transfrontaliero in quanto incidono sul mercato interno – ed è proprio questo l’aspetto che stiamo tutelando. Mi sembra quindi ragionevole che il diritto al risarcimento sia uniformemente applicabile in tutto l’ambito del mercato interno.
Solo nella misura in cui le norme procedurali degli Stati membri non garantiscono efficacemente i diritti sostanziali sanciti dai Trattati, la Commissione può tentare di ravvicinare in qualche misura tali norme. Qualsiasi misura proposta dovrebbe comunque rispettare severi criteri di sussidiarietà, proporzionalità e necessità; come ho già detto, il Libro bianco sarà accompagnato da una valutazione d’impatto.
Come ha ricordato l’onorevole Evans, è necessario evitare di incoraggiare una cultura della causa giudiziaria, col rischio di vedere moltiplicarsi azioni legali infondate. La Commissione sta invece promuovendo una cultura della concorrenza compatibile con le culture giuridiche vigenti in Europa; seguiremo un approccio cauto ed equilibrato, poiché al pari di voi siamo decisi a non aprire la strada agli eccessi che si sono registrati in qualche altro sistema giuridico. La paura, però, è un pessimo consigliere; nessuna delle caratteristiche principali del sistema di controversie giudiziarie in vigore negli Stati Uniti viene considerata un’opzione praticabile nel Libro verde.
Molti di coloro che sono favorevoli ad agevolare le azioni di risarcimento, come l’onorevole Bowles, hanno sottolineato l’esigenza di non spostare eccessivamente l’equilibrio a favore dei querelanti; tuttavia gli stessi commentatori hanno riconosciuto contemporaneamente che l’equilibrio attuale è sfavorevole alle vittime delle violazioni delle norme
e che di conseguenza è necessario agire in merito. La Commissione sta cercando di individuare un approccio proporzionato ed equilibrato, da elaborare in consultazione con le parti interessate.
L’onorevole Wallis ha fatto riferimento alle azioni collettive di risarcimento. Considerato il costo delle controversie giudiziarie, è improbabile che singoli consumatori vogliano avviare azioni per danni di scarsa entità contro i responsabili di violazioni del diritto della concorrenza; occorre quindi prendere in esame le opzioni di risarcimento collettivo, come l’onorevole Wallis ha opportunamente ricordato. Il Libro verde analizza le azioni rappresentative intraprese da organizzazioni di consumatori. Voglio quindi ribadire chiaramente che non sono in programma
sul modello americano, con possibilità di rinuncia, e da parte mia non intendo assolutamente inserirle nella mia agenda.
Nelle
con diritto di
gli avvocati agiscono in nome di una categoria di persone non identificata e perseguono sostanzialmente i propri interessi; nelle azioni rappresentative, essi invece non hanno interessi particolari, distinti da quelli delle parti lese che rappresentano. La Commissione ritiene perciò che gli interessi dei consumatori vengano soddisfatti in maniera più efficace dalle azioni rappresentative che non dalle
; spero che questa mia dichiarazione valga a rassicurare l’onorevole Berès."@it12
"Mr President, honourable Members, over 40 years ago in
the Court gave EU market players and citizens the rights they need to play a central role in our European project. The legal environment in which the victims of antitrust infringements currently find themselves is not acceptable. I got the message that everybody agrees on that. I would like to thank you for the stimulating debate here this evening on how we might gradually improve this legal environment, and I look forward to Parliament’s vote on the report. So far, so good.
I should like to leave you with two key messages. First, I hope that this House will send out a strong signal that the current situation is not acceptable and that is what I have got from you. This is all about rights, and this House has been a consistent supporter of rights across all policies and all areas of European cooperation. We have to give European citizens and European businesses the ability to exercise their rights under European competition laws. This is an area in which the Community can show its relevance to the daily life of citizens and to business.
Second, it is by working together in dialogue, through ideas and constructive criticism, that we will be able to make improvements, at the same time avoiding the known pitfalls. I look forward to taking this process forward with the White Paper at the turn of the year.
Thank you for the interesting debate and thank you especially, rapporteur, for your hard work on this important file.
I would now like to respond to a few issues raised in our debate this evening. Mr Doorn raised the question of legal base. That is important and quite clear. At the stage of a Green Paper, and in the absence of any Commission proposal, it is rather premature, if you will allow me to say so, to discuss the question of legal base at this stage. The Treaty offers appropriate, specific and general legal bases for measures in this area and I imagine that we could agree upon that. However, a pertinent base, and hence the applicable procedure, can only be identified in line with the nature, objectives and scope of any individual measure possibly envisaged after the White Paper. I will, however, consider the extent to which it may be appropriate to say something about legal bases in the forthcoming White Paper. So, there is still something to look at there.
I am aware of the need to be sensitive as regards national procedural rules. There is no doubt about that. That is quite a clear warning. On substance, we already have one uniform European competition law, and by their very nature, breaches of the antitrust rules have a cross-border impact because they affect our internal market, and that is what we are protecting. It makes sense to me that the right to compensation should also be equally enforceable throughout our internal market.
It is only to the extent that the procedural rules of the Member States do not guarantee effectively the substantive rights conferred by the Treaty that the Commission may seek some approximation of these rules. Any measures proposed would have to meet the strict tests of subsidiarity, proportionality and necessity. The White Paper will be accompanied by an impact assessment, as I have already said.
Mr Evans mentioned the need to avoid encouraging a litigation culture and the risk of unmerited claims being brought. The Commission is encouraging a competition culture compatible with our existing European legal cultures. We will pursue a measured and balanced approach, because like you, we are determined to avoid opening the door to the excesses which some other jurisdictions have experienced. But fear is a very bad adviser. None of the key characteristics of US antitrust litigation is suggested as an option in the Green Paper.
Many of those of support facilitating damage actions, like Mrs Bowles, stressed the need to avoid tilting the scales too much in favour of claimants. However, these same commentators also recognised that the scales are currently tipped against the victims of antitrust damages, and hence that something should be done. The Commission is striving for a proportionate and measured approach developed in consultation with stakeholders.
Mrs Wallis mentioned collective actions for damages claims. Given the costs of litigation, it is unlikely that individual consumers will bring small-value damages claims against the perpetrators of competition law infringements. So it is worth looking at options for collective redress, as she rightly mentioned. The Green Paper looks at representative actions brought by consumer organisations. So let us be clear – and I repeat – US-style opt-out class actions are
on the agenda and will not be on my agenda.
In opt-out class actions, lawyers act on behalf of an unidentified class of persons and mainly pursue their own interests. In representative actions, the latter have no separate interest different from that of the injured parties they represent. The Commission thus believes that the interests of consumers are better served by a representative action than by an opt-out class action, and I hope this will also reassure Mrs Berès.
Your involvement signals the importance of the debate launched by the Green Paper, and is a reason for hope, as we are all aware that there is something to be done. There is no doubt about it: the devil is in the detail."@lt14
"Mr President, honourable Members, over 40 years ago in
the Court gave EU market players and citizens the rights they need to play a central role in our European project. The legal environment in which the victims of antitrust infringements currently find themselves is not acceptable. I got the message that everybody agrees on that. I would like to thank you for the stimulating debate here this evening on how we might gradually improve this legal environment, and I look forward to Parliament’s vote on the report. So far, so good.
I should like to leave you with two key messages. First, I hope that this House will send out a strong signal that the current situation is not acceptable and that is what I have got from you. This is all about rights, and this House has been a consistent supporter of rights across all policies and all areas of European cooperation. We have to give European citizens and European businesses the ability to exercise their rights under European competition laws. This is an area in which the Community can show its relevance to the daily life of citizens and to business.
Second, it is by working together in dialogue, through ideas and constructive criticism, that we will be able to make improvements, at the same time avoiding the known pitfalls. I look forward to taking this process forward with the White Paper at the turn of the year.
Thank you for the interesting debate and thank you especially, rapporteur, for your hard work on this important file.
I would now like to respond to a few issues raised in our debate this evening. Mr Doorn raised the question of legal base. That is important and quite clear. At the stage of a Green Paper, and in the absence of any Commission proposal, it is rather premature, if you will allow me to say so, to discuss the question of legal base at this stage. The Treaty offers appropriate, specific and general legal bases for measures in this area and I imagine that we could agree upon that. However, a pertinent base, and hence the applicable procedure, can only be identified in line with the nature, objectives and scope of any individual measure possibly envisaged after the White Paper. I will, however, consider the extent to which it may be appropriate to say something about legal bases in the forthcoming White Paper. So, there is still something to look at there.
I am aware of the need to be sensitive as regards national procedural rules. There is no doubt about that. That is quite a clear warning. On substance, we already have one uniform European competition law, and by their very nature, breaches of the antitrust rules have a cross-border impact because they affect our internal market, and that is what we are protecting. It makes sense to me that the right to compensation should also be equally enforceable throughout our internal market.
It is only to the extent that the procedural rules of the Member States do not guarantee effectively the substantive rights conferred by the Treaty that the Commission may seek some approximation of these rules. Any measures proposed would have to meet the strict tests of subsidiarity, proportionality and necessity. The White Paper will be accompanied by an impact assessment, as I have already said.
Mr Evans mentioned the need to avoid encouraging a litigation culture and the risk of unmerited claims being brought. The Commission is encouraging a competition culture compatible with our existing European legal cultures. We will pursue a measured and balanced approach, because like you, we are determined to avoid opening the door to the excesses which some other jurisdictions have experienced. But fear is a very bad adviser. None of the key characteristics of US antitrust litigation is suggested as an option in the Green Paper.
Many of those of support facilitating damage actions, like Mrs Bowles, stressed the need to avoid tilting the scales too much in favour of claimants. However, these same commentators also recognised that the scales are currently tipped against the victims of antitrust damages, and hence that something should be done. The Commission is striving for a proportionate and measured approach developed in consultation with stakeholders.
Mrs Wallis mentioned collective actions for damages claims. Given the costs of litigation, it is unlikely that individual consumers will bring small-value damages claims against the perpetrators of competition law infringements. So it is worth looking at options for collective redress, as she rightly mentioned. The Green Paper looks at representative actions brought by consumer organisations. So let us be clear – and I repeat – US-style opt-out class actions are
on the agenda and will not be on my agenda.
In opt-out class actions, lawyers act on behalf of an unidentified class of persons and mainly pursue their own interests. In representative actions, the latter have no separate interest different from that of the injured parties they represent. The Commission thus believes that the interests of consumers are better served by a representative action than by an opt-out class action, and I hope this will also reassure Mrs Berès.
Your involvement signals the importance of the debate launched by the Green Paper, and is a reason for hope, as we are all aware that there is something to be done. There is no doubt about it: the devil is in the detail."@lv13
"Mr President, honourable Members, over 40 years ago in
the Court gave EU market players and citizens the rights they need to play a central role in our European project. The legal environment in which the victims of antitrust infringements currently find themselves is not acceptable. I got the message that everybody agrees on that. I would like to thank you for the stimulating debate here this evening on how we might gradually improve this legal environment, and I look forward to Parliament’s vote on the report. So far, so good.
I should like to leave you with two key messages. First, I hope that this House will send out a strong signal that the current situation is not acceptable and that is what I have got from you. This is all about rights, and this House has been a consistent supporter of rights across all policies and all areas of European cooperation. We have to give European citizens and European businesses the ability to exercise their rights under European competition laws. This is an area in which the Community can show its relevance to the daily life of citizens and to business.
Second, it is by working together in dialogue, through ideas and constructive criticism, that we will be able to make improvements, at the same time avoiding the known pitfalls. I look forward to taking this process forward with the White Paper at the turn of the year.
Thank you for the interesting debate and thank you especially, rapporteur, for your hard work on this important file.
I would now like to respond to a few issues raised in our debate this evening. Mr Doorn raised the question of legal base. That is important and quite clear. At the stage of a Green Paper, and in the absence of any Commission proposal, it is rather premature, if you will allow me to say so, to discuss the question of legal base at this stage. The Treaty offers appropriate, specific and general legal bases for measures in this area and I imagine that we could agree upon that. However, a pertinent base, and hence the applicable procedure, can only be identified in line with the nature, objectives and scope of any individual measure possibly envisaged after the White Paper. I will, however, consider the extent to which it may be appropriate to say something about legal bases in the forthcoming White Paper. So, there is still something to look at there.
I am aware of the need to be sensitive as regards national procedural rules. There is no doubt about that. That is quite a clear warning. On substance, we already have one uniform European competition law, and by their very nature, breaches of the antitrust rules have a cross-border impact because they affect our internal market, and that is what we are protecting. It makes sense to me that the right to compensation should also be equally enforceable throughout our internal market.
It is only to the extent that the procedural rules of the Member States do not guarantee effectively the substantive rights conferred by the Treaty that the Commission may seek some approximation of these rules. Any measures proposed would have to meet the strict tests of subsidiarity, proportionality and necessity. The White Paper will be accompanied by an impact assessment, as I have already said.
Mr Evans mentioned the need to avoid encouraging a litigation culture and the risk of unmerited claims being brought. The Commission is encouraging a competition culture compatible with our existing European legal cultures. We will pursue a measured and balanced approach, because like you, we are determined to avoid opening the door to the excesses which some other jurisdictions have experienced. But fear is a very bad adviser. None of the key characteristics of US antitrust litigation is suggested as an option in the Green Paper.
Many of those of support facilitating damage actions, like Mrs Bowles, stressed the need to avoid tilting the scales too much in favour of claimants. However, these same commentators also recognised that the scales are currently tipped against the victims of antitrust damages, and hence that something should be done. The Commission is striving for a proportionate and measured approach developed in consultation with stakeholders.
Mrs Wallis mentioned collective actions for damages claims. Given the costs of litigation, it is unlikely that individual consumers will bring small-value damages claims against the perpetrators of competition law infringements. So it is worth looking at options for collective redress, as she rightly mentioned. The Green Paper looks at representative actions brought by consumer organisations. So let us be clear – and I repeat – US-style opt-out class actions are
on the agenda and will not be on my agenda.
In opt-out class actions, lawyers act on behalf of an unidentified class of persons and mainly pursue their own interests. In representative actions, the latter have no separate interest different from that of the injured parties they represent. The Commission thus believes that the interests of consumers are better served by a representative action than by an opt-out class action, and I hope this will also reassure Mrs Berès.
Your involvement signals the importance of the debate launched by the Green Paper, and is a reason for hope, as we are all aware that there is something to be done. There is no doubt about it: the devil is in the detail."@mt15
".
Mijnheer de Voorzitter, dames en heren, meer dan 40 jaar geleden gaf het Hof in de zaak
de spelers op de markt en burgers de rechten die ze nodig hebben om een centrale rol te spelen in ons Europese project. De juridische situatie waarin de slachtoffers van antikartelovertredingen zich nu bevinden is niet acceptabel. Ik heb begrepen dat iedereen het daarover eens is. Ik wil u graag bedanken voor het stimulerende debat van vanavond over de vraag hoe we geleidelijk die omgeving kunnen verbeteren, en ik zie uit naar de stemming over het verslag in het Parlement. Tot zover geruststellende gedachten.
Ik wil graag afsluiten met twee belangrijke boodschappen. In de eerste plaats hoop ik dat het Parlement een krachtig signaal zal afgeven dat de huidige situatie onacceptabel is, en u hebt dat in feite al gedaan. Het gaat allemaal om rechten en het Parlement is altijd een voorvechter geweest van rechten op alle beleidsterreinen van de Europese samenwerking. We moeten de Europese burgers en het Europese bedrijfsleven de mogelijkheden bieden hun recht te halen onder bescherming van Europese concurrentiewetgeving. Dat is een terrein waarop de Gemeenschap kan laten zien dat zij van waarde is in het dagelijkse leven van burgers en bedrijfsleven.
In de tweede plaats kunnen we alleen verbeteringen aanbrengen als we in dialoog met elkaar samenwerken en ideeën en opbouwende kritiek uitwisselen, en daarbij tegelijkertijd de bekende valkuilen vermijden. Ik zie ernaar uit om op deze weg verder te gaan met het witboek tegen het einde van het jaar.
Ik dank u voor het boeiende debat en ik dank de rapporteur met name voor het vele werk dat hij voor dit belangrijke dossier heeft verzet.
Ik wil nu graag ingaan op een aantal onderwerpen dat vanavond in het debat aan de orde is gesteld. De heer Doorn heeft de kwestie van de rechtsgrondslag ter sprake gebracht. Dat is een belangrijke en vrij duidelijke kwestie. In het stadium van een groenboek en bij ontstentenis van een voorstel van de Commissie is het nogal prematuur om de kwestie van de rechtsgrondslag te bespreken, staat u mij toe dat zo te zeggen. Het Verdrag biedt passende, specifieke en algemene rechtsgrondslagen voor maatregelen op dit terrein en ik neem aan dat we het daarover eens kunnen zijn. Een relevante grondslag, en bijgevolg ook een uitvoerbare procedure, kan pas worden vastgesteld in overeenstemming met de aard, de doelstelling en de reikwijdte van afzonderlijke maatregelen die worden voorgenomen na de publicatie van het witboek. Ik zal echter overwegen in hoeverre het aan de orde is om in het beoogde witboek iets te zeggen over rechtsgrondslagen. We zullen ons daar nog over moeten buigen.
Ik ben me bewust van de noodzaak nauwgezet rekening te houden met nationale procedures. Daar mag geen twijfel over bestaan. Daar is duidelijk voor gewaarschuwd. In hoofdlijnen beschikken we al over één uniforme Europese wet op concurrentie, en overtredingen van antikartelwetgeving hebben per definitie een grensoverstijgend karakter, omdat ze gevolgen hebben voor de interne markt, en die proberen wij te beschermen. Het lijkt mij zeer zinvol om mogelijkheden te scheppen om het recht op schadeloosstelling eveneens in de gehele markt te handhaven.
De Commissie kan slechts streven naar een aanvulling op de procedurele regels van de lidstaten op die punten waar de regels van de lidstaten onvoldoende garantie bieden om de belangrijke rechten die voortvloeien uit het Verdrag, gestand te doen. Elke voorgestelde maatregel zal uiterst nauwkeurig moet worden beoordeeld op naleving van de principes van subsidiariteit, proportionaliteit en noodzaak. Het witboek zal vergezeld gaan van een effectbeoordeling, zoals ik al heb aangegeven.
De heer Evans heeft aan de orde gesteld dat we een rechtsvorderingscultuur en het risico van ongefundeerde aanspraken moeten vermijden. De Commissie moedigt een concurrentiecultuur aan die strookt met de bestaande juridische Europese cultuur. We zullen streven naar een afgewogen, evenwichtige benadering, omdat wij, net als u, vastbesloten zijn de deur gesloten te houden voor excessen zoals die in sommige andere rechtssystemen voorkomen. Angst is echter een slechte raadgever. Geen enkele van de wezenlijke kenmerken van de Amerikaanse antikartelrechtsvordering wordt in het groenboek voorgesteld.
Velen van u die het scheppen van mogelijkheden voor schadeloosstelling steunen, hebben net als mevrouw Bowles de noodzaak benadrukt om te voorkomen dat de balans te ver doorslaat naar de eisers. Zij hebben echter ook erkend dat op dit moment de balans doorslaat in het nadeel van de slachtoffers van kartelvorming en dat er dus iets moet worden gedaan. De Commissie streeft naar een passende, afgewogen benadering die wordt ontwikkeld in overleg met de betrokkenen.
Mevrouw Wallis had het over collectieve vorderingen. Gezien de kosten voor rechtsvordering is het onwaarschijnlijk dat individuele consumenten schadeclaims van geringe waarde zullen indienen tegen de plegers van overtredingen van de antikartelwetgeving. Het is dus de moeite waard om de mogelijkheden van collectieve vorderingen te onderzoeken, zoals zij terecht heeft opgemerkt. In het groenboek worden gedachten gewijd aan vorderingen door derden, ingediend door consumentenorganisaties. Laten we er vooral duidelijk over zijn, ik herhaal dat
Amerikaanse stijl geen deel uitmaken van mijn plannen, en ook in de toekomst geen deel zullen uitmaken van mijn plannen.
Bij
handelen advocaten namens een niet geïdentificeerde groep personen en zijn zij vooral uit op eigen gewin. Bij vorderingen door derden hebben zij geen ander belang in de zaak dan dat van de partij die zij vertegenwoordigen. De Commissie is van mening dat op die manier de belangen van consumenten beter gediend zijn met vorderingen door derden dan met
. Ik hoop dat dit ook mevrouw Berès gerust zal stellen.
Uw betrokkenheid toont het belang aan van het debat dat met het groenboek op gang is gebracht, en is hoopgevend, omdat we ons er allemaal van bewust zijn dat er iets moet gebeuren. Er is geen twijfel mogelijk: het venijn schuilt in de details."@nl3
"Mr President, honourable Members, over 40 years ago in
the Court gave EU market players and citizens the rights they need to play a central role in our European project. The legal environment in which the victims of antitrust infringements currently find themselves is not acceptable. I got the message that everybody agrees on that. I would like to thank you for the stimulating debate here this evening on how we might gradually improve this legal environment, and I look forward to Parliament’s vote on the report. So far, so good.
I should like to leave you with two key messages. First, I hope that this House will send out a strong signal that the current situation is not acceptable and that is what I have got from you. This is all about rights, and this House has been a consistent supporter of rights across all policies and all areas of European cooperation. We have to give European citizens and European businesses the ability to exercise their rights under European competition laws. This is an area in which the Community can show its relevance to the daily life of citizens and to business.
Second, it is by working together in dialogue, through ideas and constructive criticism, that we will be able to make improvements, at the same time avoiding the known pitfalls. I look forward to taking this process forward with the White Paper at the turn of the year.
Thank you for the interesting debate and thank you especially, rapporteur, for your hard work on this important file.
I would now like to respond to a few issues raised in our debate this evening. Mr Doorn raised the question of legal base. That is important and quite clear. At the stage of a Green Paper, and in the absence of any Commission proposal, it is rather premature, if you will allow me to say so, to discuss the question of legal base at this stage. The Treaty offers appropriate, specific and general legal bases for measures in this area and I imagine that we could agree upon that. However, a pertinent base, and hence the applicable procedure, can only be identified in line with the nature, objectives and scope of any individual measure possibly envisaged after the White Paper. I will, however, consider the extent to which it may be appropriate to say something about legal bases in the forthcoming White Paper. So, there is still something to look at there.
I am aware of the need to be sensitive as regards national procedural rules. There is no doubt about that. That is quite a clear warning. On substance, we already have one uniform European competition law, and by their very nature, breaches of the antitrust rules have a cross-border impact because they affect our internal market, and that is what we are protecting. It makes sense to me that the right to compensation should also be equally enforceable throughout our internal market.
It is only to the extent that the procedural rules of the Member States do not guarantee effectively the substantive rights conferred by the Treaty that the Commission may seek some approximation of these rules. Any measures proposed would have to meet the strict tests of subsidiarity, proportionality and necessity. The White Paper will be accompanied by an impact assessment, as I have already said.
Mr Evans mentioned the need to avoid encouraging a litigation culture and the risk of unmerited claims being brought. The Commission is encouraging a competition culture compatible with our existing European legal cultures. We will pursue a measured and balanced approach, because like you, we are determined to avoid opening the door to the excesses which some other jurisdictions have experienced. But fear is a very bad adviser. None of the key characteristics of US antitrust litigation is suggested as an option in the Green Paper.
Many of those of support facilitating damage actions, like Mrs Bowles, stressed the need to avoid tilting the scales too much in favour of claimants. However, these same commentators also recognised that the scales are currently tipped against the victims of antitrust damages, and hence that something should be done. The Commission is striving for a proportionate and measured approach developed in consultation with stakeholders.
Mrs Wallis mentioned collective actions for damages claims. Given the costs of litigation, it is unlikely that individual consumers will bring small-value damages claims against the perpetrators of competition law infringements. So it is worth looking at options for collective redress, as she rightly mentioned. The Green Paper looks at representative actions brought by consumer organisations. So let us be clear – and I repeat – US-style opt-out class actions are
on the agenda and will not be on my agenda.
In opt-out class actions, lawyers act on behalf of an unidentified class of persons and mainly pursue their own interests. In representative actions, the latter have no separate interest different from that of the injured parties they represent. The Commission thus believes that the interests of consumers are better served by a representative action than by an opt-out class action, and I hope this will also reassure Mrs Berès.
Your involvement signals the importance of the debate launched by the Green Paper, and is a reason for hope, as we are all aware that there is something to be done. There is no doubt about it: the devil is in the detail."@pl16
"Senhor Presidente, Senhoras e Senhores Deputados, há mais de 40 anos, na acção
o Tribunal concedeu aos cidadãos e aos operadores económicos os direitos de que estes necessitavam para desempenhar um papel central no nosso projecto europeu. O ambiente jurídico em que muitas vezes as vítimas de infracções
se encontram não é aceitável. Percebi que todos estão de acordo nesse ponto. Os meus agradecimentos pelo estimulante que aqui mantivemos relativamente à forma de melhorarmos gradualmente o referido ambiente jurídico. Aguardo com expectativa a votação do Parlamento sobre este relatório. Para já, é o que se me afigura dizer.
Gostaria de me despedir, deixando duas mensagens que considero essenciais. Em primeiro lugar, espero que esta Câmara sinalize energicamente que a situação actual não é aceitável. É o que espero de V. Exas. Toda esta situação tem a ver com direitos e esta Câmara tem sido um coerente apoiante dos direitos para além de todas as políticas e em todos os domínios da cooperação europeia. Temos de conferir aos cidadãos europeus e às empresas europeias a capacidade de exercerem os seus direitos à luz do direito europeu da concorrência. Esta é uma matéria em que a Comunidade pode demonstrar a sua importância em relação à vida diária dos cidadãos e das empresas.
Em segundo lugar, é pelo trabalho conjunto em clima de diálogo, pela via das ideias e da crítica construtiva que vamos ser capazes de obter melhorias, evitando ao mesmo tempo as armadilhas conhecidas. Aguardo com expectativa a possibilidade de fazer avançar este processo juntamente com o Livro Branco, no final do ano.
Muito obrigada a todos pelo interessante debate e muito obrigada em especial ao relator pelo seu árduo trabalho neste importante dossier.
Gostaria agora de tomar posição em relação a algumas questões levantadas durante este nosso debate. Na fase de Livro Verde e na ausência de uma proposta da Comissão, é bastante prematuro, se me permitem dizê-lo, discutir a questão da base jurídica. O Tratado oferece bases jurídicas adequadas, específicas e gerais, para medidas neste domínio, e imagino que podemos acordar nesse ponto. No entanto, uma base verdadeiramente pertinente e o consequente procedimento aplicável apenas podem ser identificados em sintonia com a natureza, os objectivos e o âmbito de quaisquer possíveis medidas individuais contempladas na sequência do Livro Branco. Vou, contudo, analisar a extensão até à qual pode ser adequado pronunciar-me sobre as bases jurídicas no próximo Livro Branco. Portanto, existe ainda algo para vermos a esse respeito.
Tenho noção da necessidade de termos sensibilidade relativamente aos procedimentos nacionais. E a esse respeito não há dúvida. Trata-se de um aviso bem claro. Em termos de conteúdo, já temos uma legislação uniforme sobre a concorrência e, pela sua própria natureza, a violação das regras comunitárias no domínio
tem um impacto transfronteiras devido ao facto de afectar o nosso mercado interno, e esse ponto é o que nós estamos a tentar proteger. Faz sentido para mim que o direito a indemnização deva ser aplicado de modo igual em todo o mercado interno.
É apenas na medida em que as regras processuais dos Estados-Membros não garantam efectivamente os direitos substantivos conferidos pelo Tratado, que a Comissão pode tentar alguma espécie de aproximação a estas regras. Quaisquer medidas propostas teriam de passar nos rigorosos testes de subsidiariedade, proporcionalidade e necessidade. O Livro Branco será acompanhado por uma avaliação de impacto, tal como já referi.
O senhor deputado Evans referiu a necessidade de evitarmos uma cultura de litígio e o risco de serem instaurados processos sem fundamento, a Comissão pretende encorajar uma cultura em matéria de concorrência que seja compatível com as nossas culturas jurídicas europeias. Vamos prosseguir uma abordagem comedida e equilibrada, pois, tal como o senhor deputado, também estamos determinados em evitar abrir a porta aos excessos por que outras jurisdições passaram. Mas o medo é um mau conselheiro. Nenhuma das características essenciais do sistema americano de litigação
é sugerida como opção no Livro Verde.
Muitos dos que apoiam a facilitação das acções de indemnização, como a senhora deputada Bowles, salientaram a necessidade de se evitar colocar os pratos da balança demasiado a favor dos demandantes. No entanto, estes mesmos comentadores reconhecem também que, actualmente, esses mesmos pratos da balança estão posicionados contra as vítimas de prejuízos em matéria
e daí a necessidade de alguma coisa ser feita. A Comissão envida esforços no sentido de uma abordagem proporcional e comedida, desenvolvida em consulta com as partes interessadas.
A senhora deputada Wallis referiu as acções colectivas com vista a acções de indemnização. Dados os custos envolvidos por um litígio, é pouco provável que os consumidores intentem individualmente acções com vista a indemnizações de baixo valor contra autores de uma infracção ao direito da concorrência. Deste modo, vale a pena ter em conta as opções de acções colectivas, como a senhora deputada muito justamente mencionou. O Livro Verde debruça-se sobre acções representativas instauradas por organizações de consumidores. Vamos, portanto, ser claros – e vou repetir – as
ou acções de interesse colectivo ao estilo americano
fazem parte desta ordem de trabalhos e não estão na minha ordem de trabalhos.
Neste tipo de acções, os advogados actuam por conta de um colectivo não identificado de pessoas e prosseguem sobretudo os seus próprios interesses. Nas acções representativas, estes não têm interesses diferenciados dos queixosos por si representados. Deste modo, a Comissão entende que os interesse dos consumidores ficam mais eficazmente servidos por meio de uma acção representativa do que pelas chamadas
. Neste ponto, espero ter também tranquilizado a senhora deputada Berès.
O envolvimento de V. Exas. dá conta da importância do debate lançado pelo Livro Verde e dá motivo a que tenhamos esperança, na medida em que todos estamos cientes de que há algo para ser feito. A esse respeito não há qualquer dúvida, o problema são as partes específicas."@pt17
"Mr President, honourable Members, over 40 years ago in
the Court gave EU market players and citizens the rights they need to play a central role in our European project. The legal environment in which the victims of antitrust infringements currently find themselves is not acceptable. I got the message that everybody agrees on that. I would like to thank you for the stimulating debate here this evening on how we might gradually improve this legal environment, and I look forward to Parliament’s vote on the report. So far, so good.
I should like to leave you with two key messages. First, I hope that this House will send out a strong signal that the current situation is not acceptable and that is what I have got from you. This is all about rights, and this House has been a consistent supporter of rights across all policies and all areas of European cooperation. We have to give European citizens and European businesses the ability to exercise their rights under European competition laws. This is an area in which the Community can show its relevance to the daily life of citizens and to business.
Second, it is by working together in dialogue, through ideas and constructive criticism, that we will be able to make improvements, at the same time avoiding the known pitfalls. I look forward to taking this process forward with the White Paper at the turn of the year.
Thank you for the interesting debate and thank you especially, rapporteur, for your hard work on this important file.
I would now like to respond to a few issues raised in our debate this evening. Mr Doorn raised the question of legal base. That is important and quite clear. At the stage of a Green Paper, and in the absence of any Commission proposal, it is rather premature, if you will allow me to say so, to discuss the question of legal base at this stage. The Treaty offers appropriate, specific and general legal bases for measures in this area and I imagine that we could agree upon that. However, a pertinent base, and hence the applicable procedure, can only be identified in line with the nature, objectives and scope of any individual measure possibly envisaged after the White Paper. I will, however, consider the extent to which it may be appropriate to say something about legal bases in the forthcoming White Paper. So, there is still something to look at there.
I am aware of the need to be sensitive as regards national procedural rules. There is no doubt about that. That is quite a clear warning. On substance, we already have one uniform European competition law, and by their very nature, breaches of the antitrust rules have a cross-border impact because they affect our internal market, and that is what we are protecting. It makes sense to me that the right to compensation should also be equally enforceable throughout our internal market.
It is only to the extent that the procedural rules of the Member States do not guarantee effectively the substantive rights conferred by the Treaty that the Commission may seek some approximation of these rules. Any measures proposed would have to meet the strict tests of subsidiarity, proportionality and necessity. The White Paper will be accompanied by an impact assessment, as I have already said.
Mr Evans mentioned the need to avoid encouraging a litigation culture and the risk of unmerited claims being brought. The Commission is encouraging a competition culture compatible with our existing European legal cultures. We will pursue a measured and balanced approach, because like you, we are determined to avoid opening the door to the excesses which some other jurisdictions have experienced. But fear is a very bad adviser. None of the key characteristics of US antitrust litigation is suggested as an option in the Green Paper.
Many of those of support facilitating damage actions, like Mrs Bowles, stressed the need to avoid tilting the scales too much in favour of claimants. However, these same commentators also recognised that the scales are currently tipped against the victims of antitrust damages, and hence that something should be done. The Commission is striving for a proportionate and measured approach developed in consultation with stakeholders.
Mrs Wallis mentioned collective actions for damages claims. Given the costs of litigation, it is unlikely that individual consumers will bring small-value damages claims against the perpetrators of competition law infringements. So it is worth looking at options for collective redress, as she rightly mentioned. The Green Paper looks at representative actions brought by consumer organisations. So let us be clear – and I repeat – US-style opt-out class actions are
on the agenda and will not be on my agenda.
In opt-out class actions, lawyers act on behalf of an unidentified class of persons and mainly pursue their own interests. In representative actions, the latter have no separate interest different from that of the injured parties they represent. The Commission thus believes that the interests of consumers are better served by a representative action than by an opt-out class action, and I hope this will also reassure Mrs Berès.
Your involvement signals the importance of the debate launched by the Green Paper, and is a reason for hope, as we are all aware that there is something to be done. There is no doubt about it: the devil is in the detail."@ro18
"Mr President, honourable Members, over 40 years ago in
the Court gave EU market players and citizens the rights they need to play a central role in our European project. The legal environment in which the victims of antitrust infringements currently find themselves is not acceptable. I got the message that everybody agrees on that. I would like to thank you for the stimulating debate here this evening on how we might gradually improve this legal environment, and I look forward to Parliament’s vote on the report. So far, so good.
I should like to leave you with two key messages. First, I hope that this House will send out a strong signal that the current situation is not acceptable and that is what I have got from you. This is all about rights, and this House has been a consistent supporter of rights across all policies and all areas of European cooperation. We have to give European citizens and European businesses the ability to exercise their rights under European competition laws. This is an area in which the Community can show its relevance to the daily life of citizens and to business.
Second, it is by working together in dialogue, through ideas and constructive criticism, that we will be able to make improvements, at the same time avoiding the known pitfalls. I look forward to taking this process forward with the White Paper at the turn of the year.
Thank you for the interesting debate and thank you especially, rapporteur, for your hard work on this important file.
I would now like to respond to a few issues raised in our debate this evening. Mr Doorn raised the question of legal base. That is important and quite clear. At the stage of a Green Paper, and in the absence of any Commission proposal, it is rather premature, if you will allow me to say so, to discuss the question of legal base at this stage. The Treaty offers appropriate, specific and general legal bases for measures in this area and I imagine that we could agree upon that. However, a pertinent base, and hence the applicable procedure, can only be identified in line with the nature, objectives and scope of any individual measure possibly envisaged after the White Paper. I will, however, consider the extent to which it may be appropriate to say something about legal bases in the forthcoming White Paper. So, there is still something to look at there.
I am aware of the need to be sensitive as regards national procedural rules. There is no doubt about that. That is quite a clear warning. On substance, we already have one uniform European competition law, and by their very nature, breaches of the antitrust rules have a cross-border impact because they affect our internal market, and that is what we are protecting. It makes sense to me that the right to compensation should also be equally enforceable throughout our internal market.
It is only to the extent that the procedural rules of the Member States do not guarantee effectively the substantive rights conferred by the Treaty that the Commission may seek some approximation of these rules. Any measures proposed would have to meet the strict tests of subsidiarity, proportionality and necessity. The White Paper will be accompanied by an impact assessment, as I have already said.
Mr Evans mentioned the need to avoid encouraging a litigation culture and the risk of unmerited claims being brought. The Commission is encouraging a competition culture compatible with our existing European legal cultures. We will pursue a measured and balanced approach, because like you, we are determined to avoid opening the door to the excesses which some other jurisdictions have experienced. But fear is a very bad adviser. None of the key characteristics of US antitrust litigation is suggested as an option in the Green Paper.
Many of those of support facilitating damage actions, like Mrs Bowles, stressed the need to avoid tilting the scales too much in favour of claimants. However, these same commentators also recognised that the scales are currently tipped against the victims of antitrust damages, and hence that something should be done. The Commission is striving for a proportionate and measured approach developed in consultation with stakeholders.
Mrs Wallis mentioned collective actions for damages claims. Given the costs of litigation, it is unlikely that individual consumers will bring small-value damages claims against the perpetrators of competition law infringements. So it is worth looking at options for collective redress, as she rightly mentioned. The Green Paper looks at representative actions brought by consumer organisations. So let us be clear – and I repeat – US-style opt-out class actions are
on the agenda and will not be on my agenda.
In opt-out class actions, lawyers act on behalf of an unidentified class of persons and mainly pursue their own interests. In representative actions, the latter have no separate interest different from that of the injured parties they represent. The Commission thus believes that the interests of consumers are better served by a representative action than by an opt-out class action, and I hope this will also reassure Mrs Berès.
Your involvement signals the importance of the debate launched by the Green Paper, and is a reason for hope, as we are all aware that there is something to be done. There is no doubt about it: the devil is in the detail."@sk19
"Mr President, honourable Members, over 40 years ago in
the Court gave EU market players and citizens the rights they need to play a central role in our European project. The legal environment in which the victims of antitrust infringements currently find themselves is not acceptable. I got the message that everybody agrees on that. I would like to thank you for the stimulating debate here this evening on how we might gradually improve this legal environment, and I look forward to Parliament’s vote on the report. So far, so good.
I should like to leave you with two key messages. First, I hope that this House will send out a strong signal that the current situation is not acceptable and that is what I have got from you. This is all about rights, and this House has been a consistent supporter of rights across all policies and all areas of European cooperation. We have to give European citizens and European businesses the ability to exercise their rights under European competition laws. This is an area in which the Community can show its relevance to the daily life of citizens and to business.
Second, it is by working together in dialogue, through ideas and constructive criticism, that we will be able to make improvements, at the same time avoiding the known pitfalls. I look forward to taking this process forward with the White Paper at the turn of the year.
Thank you for the interesting debate and thank you especially, rapporteur, for your hard work on this important file.
I would now like to respond to a few issues raised in our debate this evening. Mr Doorn raised the question of legal base. That is important and quite clear. At the stage of a Green Paper, and in the absence of any Commission proposal, it is rather premature, if you will allow me to say so, to discuss the question of legal base at this stage. The Treaty offers appropriate, specific and general legal bases for measures in this area and I imagine that we could agree upon that. However, a pertinent base, and hence the applicable procedure, can only be identified in line with the nature, objectives and scope of any individual measure possibly envisaged after the White Paper. I will, however, consider the extent to which it may be appropriate to say something about legal bases in the forthcoming White Paper. So, there is still something to look at there.
I am aware of the need to be sensitive as regards national procedural rules. There is no doubt about that. That is quite a clear warning. On substance, we already have one uniform European competition law, and by their very nature, breaches of the antitrust rules have a cross-border impact because they affect our internal market, and that is what we are protecting. It makes sense to me that the right to compensation should also be equally enforceable throughout our internal market.
It is only to the extent that the procedural rules of the Member States do not guarantee effectively the substantive rights conferred by the Treaty that the Commission may seek some approximation of these rules. Any measures proposed would have to meet the strict tests of subsidiarity, proportionality and necessity. The White Paper will be accompanied by an impact assessment, as I have already said.
Mr Evans mentioned the need to avoid encouraging a litigation culture and the risk of unmerited claims being brought. The Commission is encouraging a competition culture compatible with our existing European legal cultures. We will pursue a measured and balanced approach, because like you, we are determined to avoid opening the door to the excesses which some other jurisdictions have experienced. But fear is a very bad adviser. None of the key characteristics of US antitrust litigation is suggested as an option in the Green Paper.
Many of those of support facilitating damage actions, like Mrs Bowles, stressed the need to avoid tilting the scales too much in favour of claimants. However, these same commentators also recognised that the scales are currently tipped against the victims of antitrust damages, and hence that something should be done. The Commission is striving for a proportionate and measured approach developed in consultation with stakeholders.
Mrs Wallis mentioned collective actions for damages claims. Given the costs of litigation, it is unlikely that individual consumers will bring small-value damages claims against the perpetrators of competition law infringements. So it is worth looking at options for collective redress, as she rightly mentioned. The Green Paper looks at representative actions brought by consumer organisations. So let us be clear – and I repeat – US-style opt-out class actions are
on the agenda and will not be on my agenda.
In opt-out class actions, lawyers act on behalf of an unidentified class of persons and mainly pursue their own interests. In representative actions, the latter have no separate interest different from that of the injured parties they represent. The Commission thus believes that the interests of consumers are better served by a representative action than by an opt-out class action, and I hope this will also reassure Mrs Berès.
Your involvement signals the importance of the debate launched by the Green Paper, and is a reason for hope, as we are all aware that there is something to be done. There is no doubt about it: the devil is in the detail."@sl20
"Herr talman! Ärade ledamöter! För över 40 år sedan, i målet
gav rådet EU:s marknadsaktörer och medborgare de rättigheter de behöver för att spela en central roll i vårt europeiska projekt. Det nuvarande rättsliga klimatet för offren för antitrustöverträdelser är inte godtagbart. Jag har uppfattat det som att alla är överens om det. Jag tackar er för den stimulerande debatten vi haft här i kväll om hur vi steg för steg skulle kunna förbättra det rättsliga klimatet och jag ser fram mot parlamentets omröstning om betänkandet. Så långt är allt gott och väl.
Jag vill avsluta med två viktiga budskap. För det första hoppas jag att parlamentet kommer att sända en stark signal om att den nuvarande situationen inte är godtagbar, och det har ni sagt att ni kommer att göra. Detta handlar helt enkelt om rättigheter och parlamentet har konsekvent stött medborgarnas rättigheter i alla program och inom alla områden av EU-samarbetet. Vi måste ge EU:s medborgare och företag möjligheten att utöva sina rättigheter enligt EU:s konkurrenslagstiftning. På det här området kan gemenskapen visa att den betyder något för medborgarnas vardag och för näringslivet.
För det andra är det genom samarbete och dialog och genom att komma med idéer och konstruktiv kritik som vi kommer att kunna genomföra förbättringar och samtidigt undvika de kända fallgroparna. Jag ser fram mot att föra den här processen framåt med vitboken vid årsskiftet.
Jag tackar för den intressanta debatten och riktar ett särskilt tack till föredraganden, för det hårda arbete som han har lagt ned på detta viktiga dokument.
Nu vill jag svara på några frågor som väckts i vår debatt i kväll. Bert Doorn tog upp frågan om rättslig grund. Den är viktig och alldeles självklar. Med tanke på att vi bara har grönboken och kommissionen inte har lagt fram något förslag ännu, måste jag dock säga att det är lite förhastat att diskutera frågan om rättslig grund i det här skedet. Fördraget erbjuder lämpliga, specifika och allmänna rättsliga grunder för åtgärder på det här området och jag föreställer mig att vi kan vara överens om det. En passande grund och därmed ett tillämpligt förfarande kan emellertid bara fastställas i överensstämmelse med arten av och målen och räckvidden för de enskilda åtgärder som eventuellt kan införas enligt vitboken. Jag kommer emellertid att överväga om det kan vara lämpligt att ta upp den rättsliga grunden i den kommande vitboken. Vi har alltså inte funderat färdigt på detta.
Jag är medveten om behovet att ta hänsyn till nationella processrättsliga regler. Det råder inget tvivel om det. Det är en självklar varning. I sak har vi redan en enhetlig europeisk konkurrenslagstiftning och brott mot antitrustreglerna har till sin natur en gränsöverskridande verkan eftersom de påverkar vår gemensamma marknad och det är den vi vill skydda. Jag anser att det är fullständigt logiskt att rätten till gottgörelse borde tillämpas likadant på hela inre marknaden.
Det är bara i den mån som medlemsstaternas processrättsliga regler inte effektivt garanterar de materiella rättigheterna i fördraget som kommissionen får söka en tillnärmning av dessa regler. Varje åtgärd som föreslås måste uppfylla de stränga kraven på subsidiaritet, proportionalitet och nödvändighet. Vitboken kommer som sagt att åtföljas av en konsekvensanalys.
Jonathan Evans nämnde hur viktigt det är att inte främja en processkultur och att det finns risk för att oberättigade krav ställs. Kommissionen vill gynna en konkurrenskultur som är förenlig med våra befintliga europeiska rättskulturer. Vi kommer att följa en genomtänkt och välavvägd strategi eftersom vi precis som ni är fast beslutna att inte öppna dörren för de överdrifter som har förekommit i vissa andra jurisdiktioner. Men rädsla är en mycket dålig rådgivare. Inga av de huvudsakliga drag som kännetecknar de amerikanska antitrustprocesserna föreslås som en möjlighet i grönboken.
Många av dem som stöder ett underlättande av skadeståndstalan, som Sharon Bowles, betonade vikten av att vågskålen inte får väga över alltför mycket till de klagandes fördel. Men det var just dessa kommentatorer som erkände att domsluten för närvarande går emot offren för skador som förorsakats genom brott mot antitrustlagstiftningen, och något måste alltså göras åt detta. Kommissionen strävar efter en proportionell och genomtänkt strategi som utarbetas i samråd med intressenterna.
Diana Wallis nämnde kollektiv skadeståndstalan. Med tanke på kostnaderna för skadeståndsprocesser är det inte troligt att privatpersoner för fram småskaliga skadeståndskrav mot de som gör sig skyldiga till brott mot konkurrenslagen. Det är därför värt att undersöka möjligheterna till kollektiv gottgörelse som hon med rätta nämnde. I grönboken undersöker vi talan genom ombud som väcks av konsumentorganisationer. Så för tydlighetens skull upprepar jag att grupptalan enligt ”opt out-modellen” i amerikansk stil
står på dagordningen, och jag kommer inte att beakta det alternativet.
När det gäller grupptalan enligt opt out-modellen agerar advokaterna på uppdrag av en oidentifierad grupp av personer och handlar främst i eget intresse. I talan genom ombud har ombuden inga egenintressen som skiljer sig från intressena hos de skadelidande parter som de representerar. Kommissionen anser därför att konsumenternas intressen är bättre betjänta av talan genom ombud än av grupptalan enligt opt out-modellen, och jag hoppas att det också lugnar Pervenche Berès.
Ert engagemang vittnar om hur viktig den debatt som inleddes i och med grönboken är och väcker förhoppningar eftersom vi alla vet att vi kan åstadkomma något på detta område. Det råder inget tvivel om att det är detaljerna som kommer att bli stötestenen."@sv22
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
""opt-out class actions""2
"Member of the Commission"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,11,13,4
"Neelie Kroes,"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4
"antitrust"12,17
"inte"22
"ne figurent pas"8
"no"21
"not"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4
"não"17
"van Gend [amp] Loos"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4
"δεν"10
"“opt-out class actions”"3
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples