Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-11-19-Speech-1-038-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20121119.17.1-038-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
". −
Mr President, Commissioner, from the outset of our work on the report on the recasting of the regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, I realised the great complexity of the material we had to deal with. Improving and facilitating the application of a regulation whose operation is generally considered to be very satisfactory has proved no easy task. Many matters have required our attention over the year or so, but I believe that, on all the issues, both the more and less controversial, we have managed to work out satisfactory compromises. A large number of informal tripartite discussions held during the Polish, Danish and Cypriot Presidencies have enabled us to reach a degree of rapprochement and mutual understanding such that today it is possible to speak of agreement at first reading.
The most important issue with which we began our work on the regulation was abolition of the
procedure. During the Polish Presidency, we arrived at a joint approach that was, in the great majority of cases, consistent with the amendments proposed by me in the report. The
procedure will accordingly be abolished, thus facilitating the circulation of court judgments in civil and commercial cases, shortening the time needed to enforce judgments and considerably reducing the procedural costs.
At the same time, all the safeguards for the defendant that provide a basis for suspending or refusing enforcement of a judgment will be maintained, including the public policy clause. The introduction of such a change was possible because of the greater level of confidence in the legal systems of the Member States, and today we can consider the abolishment of the
procedure as our joint success.
Both in the Council and in Parliament, the question of widening the scope of application of the Regulation to third countries, and the corresponding ‘rebound effect’, was a highly emotive issue. From the outset, I was very sceptical, not about the idea itself, but rather about taking an over-hasty decision to make such wide-ranging changes to the Brussels I Regulation.
The compromise reached in the course of our meetings provides that a widening of jurisdiction be introduced for consumer contracts and individual employment contracts. That means that a consumer will be also be able to sue a seller from outside the Union in his own Member State, the State in which he lives. That concept proved a very attractive solution both for its advocates and for those who considered full harmonisation of the jurisdictional provisions to be premature. It is without doubt a step in the right direction, extending the administration of justice for the weaker party. At the same time, thanks to the inclusion of the revision clause, we retain the possibility of taking another look at the issue of judgments in such cases in the coming months and years, and of making any necessary changes to harmonisation of the jurisdictional rules.
The question of arbitration agreements proved rather complicated. After numerous discussions, Parliament took the view that the best solution was to retain the
in this area, i.e. to leave arbitration wholly outside the scope of application of the regulation. The European Parliament’s position was reflected in the final compromise, since we retain the
in the operative part of the Regulation while explaining the application of the rule in great detail in the preamble.
The next issue whose importance for Parliament I wish to stress is the question of delegated acts. They were included in the Commission’s original proposal but were deleted during negotiations in the Council. However, following a rapid intervention by Parliament, delegated acts were reinstated by the Danish Presidency, to our full satisfaction.
A great deal of reflection was also required by the issue of choice-of-court agreements. I would pay tribute to the Cypriot Presidency for setting out, in the preamble, the specific areas of application of the relevant provisions. I believe they are sufficiently detailed to be of assistance when it comes to interpreting the provisions of the operative part of the regulation.
In conclusion, Mr President, I wish to thank most heartily all the parties involved in this legislative procedure: the Commission (especially Commissioner Reding), the Polish, Danish and Cypriot Presidencies, my colleagues on the Committee on Legal Affairs, and all those who were actively committed to the same end – a very positive conclusion to the work."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples