Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-20-Speech-4-196"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000120.12.4-196"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to start by expressing my thanks to the honourable MEP, Mrs Palacio, for giving me the opportunity of elaborating upon a matter which is extremely important but also extremely complex. I would like to say the following on this matter.
It also seems necessary to me that appropriate, additional solutions should be found in order to eliminate the objections raised during the hearing by the consumer representatives. This is why it is important that negotiations take place involving all interested parties in order to find alternatives, as requested by Mrs Palacio, to the often lengthy, costly and complex judicial procedures, and this with a view to settling cross-border disputes following e-commerce transactions swiftly and with less expense for the consumer.
Like Mrs Palacio, with a view to bringing about an area without internal borders pursuant to Article 2 EC, the Commission attaches a great deal of importance to the principle that enterprises need to be able to make their goods and services available throughout the Union without the Member State of destination imposing discriminating and unjustified obstructions. Indeed, these obstructions can lead to the fragmentation of the internal market because enterprises need to bring their goods or services into line with the regulations of all European Union countries where they are active.
This is our point of departure which is shared by Mrs Palacio who, in fact, stated just now that the European Union is based on the internal market. The Commission could not agree more with Mrs Palacio. However, the condition under which the principle of mutual recognition can be wholly accepted is that all Member States have an appropriate and comparable level of consumer protection.
In the proposal brought by the honourable MEP for a directive on certain legal aspects of e-commerce, it is expressly stated that the term “internal market” in Article 3 does not include commitments arising from consumer agreements. As Mrs Palacio is aware, commitments made in consumer agreements are governed by the Convention of Rome and, as such, do not fall within the scope of the e-commerce directive on which political agreement was reached in the Council on 7 December last.
With regard to the recent initiatives taken by the Commission in the framework of the new Chapter IV of the Treaty of the European Community, I assume that Mrs Palacio – as she, in fact, put into words just now – particularly refers to the draft regulation which the Commission approved in July 1999, further to the activities of an ad hoc group of the Council and after political agreement by the fifteen Member States, the aim of this draft regulation being to incorporate the Treaty of Brussels of 1968 concerning legislative power and the recognition and execution of decisions in civil and commercial affairs, into derived Community legislation.
Mrs Palacio mentioned this a minute ago and criticised the way in which the regulation proposed by the Commission has come into being. She also stated that there was little consultation, not only between Commission and Parliament, but even among the different Councils.
The Commission has proposed amendments to the original treaty dating back to 1968 in order to bring this – it has to be said – old treaty into line with modern trading methods and, in particular, e-commerce. The honourable MEP now seems to be of the opinion that the points of departure of the draft regulation, which should communitise the Treaty of Brussels, would contravene the principle of the country of origin. This would mean, however, if she were right, that the judiciary would also come under the scope of this principle, which is not the case. Moreover, article 1 of the aforementioned draft directive on e-commerce stipulates, as has been established by political agreement in December, that this draft does not pertain to the issue of the judiciary. As Mrs Palacio is aware, the issue of the judiciary falls under the scope of the Convention of Brussels.
So, the present situation embraces three separate components. There is the draft directive on e-commerce. There is the Rome Convention, to which I referred just now, and there is the Brussels Convention. These are three components which, at the moment, are juxtaposed, yet independent of each other. Mr President, the Commission will ensure that due consideration is given to the objections lodged during the hearing of 4 and 5 November, on the possible effects this draft regulation will have on the internal market, and to the statements received in favour of the draft. The Commission is in the process of analysing the numerous and detailed positions it has received and will announce its proposals, if any, in due course.
However, it would seem useful, in any event, especially in the light of the points of criticism brought by Mrs Palacio, that the Commission, before taking any initiative, should be informed of the position which the European Parliament will be taking in February of this year."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples