Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-06-Speech-4-016"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2007-09-06"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Review of the consumer acquis (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20070906.2.4-016"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-09-06-Speech-4-0172
lpv:speaker	lp:Eva-Britt Svensson2
lpv:spokenAs	member; IMCO (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; LIBE (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Vänsterpartiet (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 vice-chair; FEMM (2007-02-01--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 vice-chair; EUL/NGL (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with Israel (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for an ambitious work. The question we must ask is: what is most important in a consumer programme – consumer rights or the rights of enterprises? In my view the choice is simple. We must strengthen consumer rights and enterprises must take responsibility for their products. The Green Paper discusses how a better regulatory framework will increase trade between countries, but the top priority in a consumer regulatory framework must still be to reinforce consumer rights. The biggest problem experienced by consumers at present is that it is difficult to have a dispute over consumer rights between different countries examined because there is no body to settle cross-border disputes. But, on the whole, this problem is not addressed in the Green Paper. First and foremost, the EU should develop bodies to settle such disputes, not create more EU legislation. This approach is also supported by the European consumer organisation BUC. The rules that apply now are minimum harmonisation, i.e. a common lowest level is agreed below which no country may fall. At the same time, it is possible for countries to have stricter national legislation. To change that to full harmonisation at EU level runs counter to the subsidiarity principle which so many claim to uphold, including the Commission. The GUE/NGL Group is opposed to the proposal in the report to combine minimum legislation with the principle of mutual recognition. Mutual recognition is similar to the country of origin principle. There is a risk that we will see a race towards the lowest level of consumer rights. Enterprises may be tempted to become established in countries with weak consumer protection. The aim of the Green Paper is of course said to be to strengthen the consumer’s position on the EU market. But if we are serious about strengthening consumer protection, we must vote in favour of the GUE/NGL Group’s amendment, according to which the host country’s rules, i.e. the rules of the country where the goods are purchased, must apply. Unfortunately, I must say that large parts of the report place the interests of industry first and increase the liberalisation of the internal market. This is a threat to the standards and levels that already exist in many Member States. The report introduces the principle of mutual recognition into consumer legislation. This goes against all efforts to improve consumer protection. Therefore, for the sake of consumer protection, I and the GUE/NGL Group are voting against the report."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph