Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-14-Speech-2-111"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020514.8.2-111"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The Council's new Article 3(4) is a very remarkable cuckoo in the nest, and a very dangerous one too. In practice, this article means that, even at a stage when no contract has been entered into – when, for example, information, advertising, offers etc are posted on a web site – it is not sufficient for the service provider to adhere to the laws of the Member State in which he is based; he also has to be familiar with those of the other fourteen, with all their idiosyncrasies. Furthermore, a service provider would have to set up not just one web site, but fifteen, each tailored to the legislative quirks of the various Member States. Obstacles of that sort make it scarcely possible to speak in terms of a common internal market!
This article also puts the consumer at a disadvantage, as the legal uncertainty that results from this is more likely to deter businesses from offering their services via the Internet, which, as a medium, is convenient for the consumer.
Like Article 3 (4), Article 16 of the common position envisages an exception – admittedly one with a time limit – to the country-of-origin principle and to the
commerce directive, in that it permits the Member States to impose national rules on a service provider based in a Member State if the service provider's Member State has not yet transposed the directive. This totally absurd way of going about things could become a dangerous precedent and should therefore be removed from the text."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Explanations of vote cut short pursuant to Rule 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure)"1
"e-"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples