Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-29-Speech-3-190"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000329.11.3-190"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, our honourable friend, Mr MacCormick, has made a thorough and critical appraisal of the Green Paper on civil liability for defective products and he deserves our thanks for his work and for his cooperative contribution. I should just like to make a few more comments on behalf of my group on a number of necessary amendments on which both we and the Group of the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party reached extensive agreement in the run-up. I refer to the checks which your department needs to carry out, Commissioner Bolkestein, and the question of the burden of proof which, according to Article 4, rests solely on the injured party. My group believes the Commission should check if prima facie evidence and circumstantial evidence can also be taken into account at all levels at which evidence is taken. This is particularly important because the product world is becoming more and more complex and it is becoming more and more difficult for individual persons who have suffered damage to provide proof in this area.
There is also the question of derogations from general manufacturer’s liability, especially the so-called development risk. We need to examine if these derogations are expedient and conducive to the balance between manufacturers and consumers. This applies in particular in the case of foodstuffs and medication. We do not want to see the consumer alone bear the risks inherent in technical progress. In my view, applying the directive solely to private use and consumption is a questionable move. The Commission should consider if the directive should not be extended to commercial goods. The material damage sustained by a company is, in principle, no different from the material damage sustained by a private individual. And the smaller the enterprise, the heavier the burden of this unequal treatment. Harmonisation of laws at Community level would be in keeping with the purpose of the product liability directive, especially as increasing flexibility in the world of work is tending more and more to blur the clear distinction between the private world and the world of work.
We also need to think about the way in which liability is statute-barred. It is clear from the case of BSE that a standard ten-year limitation on liability may be insufficient under certain circumstances. We could perhaps consider gearing the limitation period to the type of product. However, it is not only these individual points which are important; we also need to seize every opportunity to harmonise product liability still further in the form of comprehensive consumer protection in the European Union. If we supplement the MacCormick report in this direction, the European Parliament will have done a good job in the eyes of the consumer. Which is why we have been elected."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples