Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-20-Speech-4-203"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000120.12.4-203"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, top priority for the European Commission, but also top priority for European industry and trade is electronic trade, or e-commerce. We must not forget that consumers too greatly benefit from being able to use e-commerce well. But what are we faced with now? A fierce discussion between industry and consumers about the legislation which applies in the case of cross-border trade which is increasingly taking place electronically. Suppliers of products and services support the home country principle according to which the legislation of the country where the supplier is based applies. I can understand that.
Mr President, take an example. If you, as a Portuguese citizen, buy a computer via the Internet from a supplier in Finland – by the way, the Finns have sound consumer protection – the home country principle will apply according to Finnish law. The expensive computer, however, does not arrive whilst you have already paid for it by credit card. Would this Portuguese person like to start a court case in Finland? I do not think so. This would mean that you would also need to obtain legal advice in Finland or about Finnish legislation. But, Mr Bolkestein, there is more. More than what you have mentioned because the European consumer is protected by more rules than just legislation on e-commerce or the regulations you just mentioned. There is also a directive on ‘distance selling’. A directive on ‘financial services’ is under way. There is also a privacy directive. These contain minimum guarantees, sometimes maximum guarantees, for the consumer. The proposed legislation on e-commerce adds a number of extra measures to these.
Two different Commission proposals have also been tabled in this regard. It is difficult, however, to know where to turn for legal protection. On the one hand, there is e-commerce which is based on the home country principle and, on the other, there is the proposal for this new, adapted Brussels regulation. Although – and I agree with Mr Bolkestein on this – it is quite possible to combine both proposals to the letter, the underlying idea is definitely contradictory. So this leads to confusion, and the legal protection accompanying e-commerce therefore faces teething problems. Mr President, in my opinion, we as the European Parliament are also liable for arranging proper consumer protection. After all, the consumer benefits from a transparent and consistent system of legal protection because, without consumer confidence, e-commerce cannot really come into its own and take off completely. We must, therefore, in my opinion, more so than we have done so far, consider what the alternatives are for offering legal protection to consumers, even when something goes wrong. Then I think, and this is why I call upon Commissioner Bolkestein, that we should take a much better look at the alternative systems for settling disputes. As you know, the Netherlands boasts a finely tuned system of alternative dispute settlements which, in fact, could also work on a cross-border basis, where the Conciliation Committees Foundation already enables people from abroad to lodge objections with this Foundation in The Hague. Justice is also administered there.
Mr President, one of the solutions is to find a different course."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples