Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-13-Speech-1-146"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991213.8.1-146"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:translated text |
"It will be clear that if a French and a Belgian driver, both from EU Member States, have an accident in Australia, for example, and a dispute arises between the insurance companies which cover these two drivers, it would be extremely awkward to allow direct action at the location where the accident, far removed from the European Union, took place under circumstances which are hard to verify. As far as this is concerned, the Commission, and I refer to the position also adopted by the Council in its viewpoint, can hardly meet the requirement of the European Parliament as quite remarkably and extremely skilfully expressed by Mr Rothley. We are not in a position to do this. But perhaps the MEPs and the rapporteur, in particular, could take my last point into consideration and we could then see to what degree the scope of this directive could be extended to include the six countries mentioned by myself.
At the end of the day, Mr President, the directive as it stands, its current scope being the European Union, already covers 99% of accidents. If you add Switzerland and the five above-mentioned countries, then I think that we are not far off the one hundred percent mark. I would strongly urge Parliament to consider accepting the Commission’s helping hand and to take advantage of the Commission’s proposal to extend the scope to include the six countries mentioned by myself. After all, Mr President, each compromise must clearly identify the third countries to which the directive can actually be extended. Moreover, we must avoid any solution contravening third-country legislation.
Mr President, I would now like to comment on the remaining amendments. The Commission is of the opinion that the draft amendments prejudice the legal security of the proposal and will have a detrimental effect on those insured. This is not intended, of course. I will run through them very quickly.
Amendment No 3 is said to omit references necessary to rule out conflicts with national rules of law. Amendments Nos 4, 5, 6, 14, 15 and 16 are said to leave out certain considerations and provisions which aim to guarantee legal security, transparency and financial security of the imported redress mechanism. By incorporating Amendments Nos 7, 17 and 18, a key component would be deleted on which all car insurance guidelines are based, namely the reference to the agreement between national bodies of indemnity as a basis for the redress mechanism.
Finally, Mr President, Amendment No 19 has dropped a general provision which is proposed for reasons of consumer protection and subsidiarity. I therefore have to inform Parliament that the Commission is of the opinion that the proposed Amendments Nos 3 to 7 and 14 to 19 are a step backwards from the point of view of an effective legal instrument of the European Union. For this reason, the Commission has to reject these amendments.
By way of conclusion, the Commission wishes to remind everyone how much progress we have made with this proposal. The common position satisfactorily guarantees that damages are paid for the vast majority of accidents involving EU citizens outside their country of residence. I have already mentioned this but would very much like to reiterate this. According to the Commission, the common position, which has come about so thoughtfully, forms an important extension of the protection of insured parties within the European Union. It is the Commission’s sincere wish to ensure that this proposal be transposed into Community legislation at the earliest opportunity.
Mr President, the Commission would like to assure Parliament that it will play an active and constructive role in facilitating a compromise in the event that the consultation procedure seems inevitable, which I, in fact, hope will not be the case. I hope we will not have to resort to a consultation procedure. One dreads to think what this procedure might lead to. Should we fail to reach an agreement, then this entire directive would be scrapped and this would be extremely regrettable. I would like to convince the MEPs and Mr Rothley, in particular, of this fact."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples