Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-13-Speech-1-057"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-05-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Distance marketing of consumer financial services2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020513.5.1-057"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-05-13-Speech-1-0582
lpv:speaker	lp:Kurt Lechner2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Ukraine and the EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committees and Delegation for relations with Belarus (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking Mrs Berger for having done a great deal of meritorious work, and also my fellow MEPs for their contributions. Much that has been said has been very much to the point, and, in order to avoid repeating it, I wish to limit myself to just one aspect of the directive. The attempt is being made to make consumer protection a reality principally by the means of two instruments, rights of cancellation being one and extensive requirements to provide information, advice and guidance the other. It is immediately apparent that consumers are protected by rights such as these. On the other hand, this does have its drawbacks – as must of course often be the case. Do consumers read the information? Do they take it on board? Do they understand it? Do they really cancel, or is it not possible that they are led by it to too free a use of their signatures and a consequent inability to extricate themselves? On the other hand, it is in the interests of the business world and of the legal profession for contracts to be durable, and – to take the example Mr Karas has just given – their becoming immediately effective may be in the interests of the consumers themselves. The reason I say this is that, from these points of view, consumers are afforded better protection where provision is made for the statements they make to be authenticated by a notary. The procedure itself includes a warning in that the consumer has time to think things over, but, secondly, it involves advice from a third party, one outside the proceedings and obliged to be neutral, and, indeed liability if – as may of course happen – the right advice was not given. At the same time, though, it combines these points with the advantage of the durability of a deed or contract, and the provision of legal certainty. In these respects, as a whole, I see this as affording the consumer better protection where – as I have said – provision is made for this. That is of course not always possible, and certainly not in the day-to-day retail market. That is why, in my opinion, you should follow the principle that, where national legislation makes provision for consumer authentication, this must suffice, being the better way to protect consumers."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph