Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-20-Speech-4-205"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000120.12.4-205"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, indeed, I should like to touch upon some of the interesting points raised by your MEPs. I should like to start with an expression used by Mr Harbour and I should like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Harbour for the keen interest he has shown during the hearings of 4 and 5 November. The Commission always highly appreciates it if Members of this Parliament attend a hearing or other activities and I should like to take the opportunity to underline this, Mr President. Well now, Mr Harbour talked about “balance” and this is, of course, what the Commission pursues. You will understand, Mr President, that I am not only speaking on my own behalf and that of my own Directorate-General, but also on behalf of the entire Commission. The Commission comprises, among others, Mr Byrne, who has the interests of consumers at heart and, in my response in this debate, Mr President, I inevitably refer to Mr Byrne’s positions so that we, as Mrs Wallis put it, display a joined-up administration.
Well now, we are pursuing that balance, and this is a balance between the interests of the manufacturer on the one hand and the interests of the consumer on the other. So much is clear and the arguments are naturally evident too. We are hoping to achieve this balance. In my opinion, we managed to strike this balance in the directive on e-commerce. The principle of this directive is that the country of origin plays a decisive role when legal proceedings are instituted in connection with e-commerce. There is a derogation with regard to public order, to put it in general terms, but this derogation is strictly defined. It has to pertain to certain goals and not others. It must be a derogation which is necessary. The country where the infringement occurs, the infringement of public order, must be called to account. It must be given the opportunity to take measures, and the Commission must be informed. The Commission must be given the opportunity to take action against the country which has allowed the infringement to happen. In other words, the directive on e-commerce is based on the country of origin with a derogation which is, however, strictly defined. Mr President, may I also take this opportunity to urge this Parliament to approve the directive appropriately, that is to say swiftly, so that, on expiry of the Internal Market Council in May, it can find its way into European legislation. Everyone is waiting for a European directive on e-commerce, and I hope that we can achieve this in May.
Mr President, I would like to broach a different subject which has also been mentioned by a number of MEPs, not least by Mrs Palacio, but also by Mrs Oomen, for example, and this is the Brussels Convention. I take on board the criticism levelled by Mrs Palacio on the way in which the Commission’s proposal came about. We will draw lessons from that, but I would still urge Parliament, and the Committee on Legal Affairs in particular, to form an opinion on this difficult point of Article 15. If I am not mistaken, Mr President, Article 15 of the Commission’s proposal on this Brussels Convention deviates on one key point from the original convention in favour of consumer protection. Indeed, in the original convention dating back to 1968, the opportunity of consumers to invoke their own rights was subject to two requirements. Of those two requirements, one has been eliminated from the Commission’s proposal. Well now, this is a matter of high importance and which has given cause for concern among the various organisations which are involved in this. It is an issue which is preoccupying the Commission. I myself will be holding a small meeting next Wednesday, involving four other Commissioners, including Commissioner Byrne, Commissioner Vitorino and Commissioner Liikanen, to gather our thoughts on Article 15. At the same time, however, if you will allow me, Mr President, and if Mrs Palacio permits me, I would like to call on the Committee on Legal Affairs to pay due attention to Article 15, thus allowing the Commission to find out at an early stage what Mrs Palacio’s committee thinks.
Mrs Wallis was right to use the term joined-up administration. Well now, in consultation with Parliament, let us think of a more detailed description of Article 15, as defined in the Commission’s proposal.
In addition, a number of Members of this Parliament, Mrs Wallis, Mrs Oomen and, of course, Mrs Palacio, have referred to small claim procedures, on the one hand, and alternative dispute settlements on the other.
Parliament will understand that these are matters which do not directly fall under my remit but concern my colleague, Mr Vitorino more. This does not detract from the fact that they are, of course, closely related to this subject as a whole and that these accelerated and simplified methods of bringing legal disputes to an end are, naturally, very closely related to the functioning of the internal market. That is why I feel such a connection with this dossier. But honesty requires me to say that it is Antonio Vitorino who is primarily responsible for these matters.
Well now, I have just mentioned that we, four or five Commissioners, will be meeting next Wednesday. I can tell you now that I will be emphasising and drawing attention to the need to arrive at these two accelerated, simplified methods of ending minor legal disputes concerning e-commerce.
Once again, and I would like to finish on this remark: we are trying to seek a balance; we are trying to find a balance. We do not want, on the one hand, what Mr MacCormick suggested. We do not want any ‘long-distance rip-offs’. That is something we do not want. I would thank Mr MacCormick for this colourful phrase. On the other hand, we do not want what Mrs Wallis suggested either, a situation in which excessive protection leads to violations of the internal market. That is something we do not want. We do not want the one, but neither do we want the other. We will have to find the right way, between Scylla and Charybdis, to benefit the internal market i.e. all consumers in Europe."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples