Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-20-Speech-3-158"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-09-20"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Enforcement of civil and commercial judgments2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000920.13.3-158"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-09-20-Speech-3-1592
lpv:speaker	lp:Astrid Thors2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Temporary committee on the Echelon interception system (2000-07-06--2001-09-05)3 member; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 chair; Delegation to the EU-Romania Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-13--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Svenska folkpartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Lithuania Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member; PETI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (1999-09-13--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, unlike many other MEPs, I am not in the habit of routinely thanking the rapporteur. I only do so when there is a reason. Today, we do have reason for thanking Diana Wallis for displaying what has most emphatically been the patience of a saint and the stamina of an athlete in drawing up this report. I want to emphasise that the majority of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party supports her and the amendments she has tabled on the Group’s behalf. I also want to point out that the debate has been frustrating to some degree. If the same energy had been put into developing confidence-building systems instead of into lobbying which has not always been very professional, I believe that a lot would already have happened to create the confidence and confidence-building systems which are required if consumers are to have the courage to begin trading. One great merit of this piece of work is the importance which the rapporteur and Parliament attach to consumer-friendly dispute-resolution mechanisms and the pressure they have brought to bear in order to obtain these. This is important, and I do not believe that the same weight would have been given to this issue if this work had not been done. As has been repeated a great many times, the biggest dispute, as we all know, has been about which court is to have competence in matters relating to electronic commerce. This is an issue which will set a precedent, and that is why we have seen such vigorous lobbying. It is a question with which we shall be confronted many times in connection, for example, with tax issues and cyber crime. We must resolve the issue of which is to be the competent court. I believe that there is a lot to indicate that, in the future, we must have clearer rules specifically in connection with places of domicile. We cannot proceed as often on the basis of where events have taken place. This also emerged yesterday from our seminar on cyber crime. What is to be taken as the domicile address? That is why it is important that we should establish today that it is the consumer’s domicile address which matters in the end. Finally, I should like to ask those who are going to support the majority of the committee in the vote how they can look consumers in their own countries in the eye when the latter become aware that the view of the majority of the committee will, in practice, lead to their being denied access to their own courts. I should like finally to strike a biblical note. I once met an old man who said, ‘I am in no doubt at all that, when I speak to my God, I can speak in my own language. I also hope, however, that the same will apply in the courts I may be called before’."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph