Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-20-Speech-3-165"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000920.13.3-165"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner Vitorino, it is important for the e
commerce market that we can conduct pan-European trade in an electronic environment. No barriers to the market should be set up, either legislative or technological. A Europe without borders is to the benefit of consumers. If the amendments made by the committee to the report now being discussed were to be rejected tomorrow, the future of
commerce in Europe would be in jeopardy.
Ladies and gentlemen, as nice as it would be for the employment situation for our legal profession, it would be an enormous burden for small- and medium-sized enterprises in Europe to take account of the legislation that exists in all EU countries and the signatories to the Locarno Agreement when they are engaged in e-commerce. Presumably this would also mean that any respectable companies that want to be responsible and look after their consumers’ interests, will not become involved in
commerce at all. As a result, there will be less on offer to the consumer as a whole, as Lord Inglewood earlier mentioned. On the other hand, irresponsible rascals would remain in the market and they would look after the consumer only until the clink of money is heard in the seller’s bank account, and no longer.
Ladies and gentlemen, according to a proposal by a consumer organisation, marketing could be directed at just one country or just certain markets, which is not technically possible in the world of the Internet. The electronic world knows no national frontiers. Besides, this would discriminate against consumers, as the consumer must have the right to order products from anywhere to go anywhere. This kind of interpretation would probably also run counter to the principle of the free movement of goods and services as referred to in Article 49 of the Treaty of Rome. A company engaged in
commerce cannot normally even know what country the consumer is in. It would therefore be impossible to require a company to find out beforehand about the consumer protection legislation that exists in the customer’s country, as that country could be anywhere. Instead it would be reasonable to create alternative procedures for resolving disputes. The e-commerce players should, however, have the right to choose between normal court procedures or an alternative way to resolve the dispute.
I would also ask the Council and the Commission to still take time to reflect whether it would be worth considering this charge-back mechanism, which Mrs de Palacio mentioned again in her amendment to the report. It could increase bureaucracy from the point of view of the consumer. In this the committee’s position is not absolute but it would seem that the majority in this Chamber support it and that tomorrow it will be upheld as Parliament’s position, which is a good thing."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"e"1
"e-"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples