Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-20-Speech-3-154"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000920.13.3-154"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – The opinion on this report revolves around Articles 15 and 17. I now speak on behalf of my group, in respect of the amendments tabled by them and other political groups.
The shared aim of all of us is to try to find a balanced way of protecting consumers and shielding SMEs from differing Member State jurisdictions. This problem has been exaggerated totally out of proportion. From the evidence available, such cross border B to C disputes are few and far between and the hope is that most of them will now be weeded out by ADR systems. But, where they go beyond that, it is the consumer who is most disadvantaged. The bigger businesses will be able to afford legal assistance. The astute and sensible SME can insure for a modest premium. That leaves the residue of unsuspecting businesses that may get involved in a transaction outside their Member State.
In these circumstances it is not unreasonable to build on the previous content of Article 15, use the concept of “directed at”, acknowledge that this is a concept also found in American jurisprudence and utilised by WIPO. It is not simple but it has been used and there is no simple solution here. This, in combination with a modification to Article 17, which allows freedom of contract to choose ADR but respects existing consumer rights in the form of the unfair contract terms directive, presents a much more workable, legally certain package that will promote confidence.
It is a mark of the balance that we have achieved in these amendments that they have won the support of the CBI in my own country and more than partial support from consumer organisations. They certainly prefer this package to the committee one.
What I did not refer to when I spoke previously was Parliament’s role in this legislative process. We are consultees. We know from what has been said on this subject by Commissioner Byrne that he will not accept the type of formulation proposed by the committee at Article 17a. I believe that Commissioner Vitorino shares his view.
From the Council’s perspective, the UK Government expressed a similar view. It seems unlikely that a French Presidency, which is highlighting consumer affairs, will take a different view.
We could say that, because we are only consultees, we can say what we like. We are merely signalling a political direction but it is important that we should signal a legally certain and workable solution, not one that will create as many problems as it seeks to solve.
Parliament should behave responsibly as a grown-up legislator, not as a petulant child. We have the opportunity to build on the already substantial achievements in the committee’s final report. I hope that we will go further."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples