Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-02-Speech-1-055"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010702.6.1-055"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I have been a keen supporter of the alternative and out-of-court settlement of disputes for years. Not only can this be a means of coping with the ever increasing pressure on regular, judicial bodies; more than anything, it offers citizens a low threshold for the swift and inexpensive settlement of complaints.
In fact, over the past couple of years, when dealing with different consumer issues, such as remote sales, I have time and again stressed the need for alternative ways of settling disputes in order for the internal market to function well. Consequently, the alternative settlement of disputes has been included explicitly in a number of directives.
The internal market has given consumers the opportunity to expand their horizons enormously, and they no longer rely on what is on offer within the national market. Certainly at a time when cross-border sales and purchases are increasingly being made via modern communications methods, the benefits of the European market are becoming apparent.
But the consumer may also be dissatisfied at times. This applies at Member State, as well as international, level. In the case of cross-border purchases, the complaints procedure is much longer but, above all, also more laborious. Many consumers are so put off by the complex procedures – not helped by the fact that they are drafted in a foreign language – that they do not pursue their complaints. That is deplorable.
In the light of this, I welcome the Commission’s proposal with open arms. I should also like to congratulate Mrs Wallis who has managed to pinpoint a few sore points in her report, with which I could not agree more.
Allow me to mention a few more key words with regard to the information desks to be set up. These need to be simple procedures, a low threshold for the consumer who is looking for legal solutions and sound regulations governing the use of the consumer’s own language. As for the latter, the Commission should reconsider how it intends to implement its plans practically speaking. I should also like to know when the information desks will be set up in the different Member States. The Netherlands plans to launch these in 2001.
In my opinion, the information desks should focus on the role of offering guidance to the consumer. In that respect, I do not see eye to eye with Mrs Wallis. The real legal advice must therefore be given by duly qualified people. I also believe that the information desk should not, and cannot, act in the role of advocate, for then it would be responsible for the advice given. In my view, the information desk should be a facility and an effective guide and must act as a conduit to channel disputes to the alternative settlement of disputes procedure, for example.
In this connection, I believe that my amendment should be carefully re-read, also by the rapporteur. We run too many risks when we start issuing them with legal tasks. I speak from experience as Chairman of the Disputes Settlement Committees Foundation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples