Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-21-Speech-2-247"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031021.7.2-247"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner Bolkestein, thank you for your kind words, which I can only acknowledge. In this area of insurance law and protection for victims of accidents there is in fact excellent cooperation between the Commission and Parliament and I thank you for that.
With the Fifth Directive we are consistently continuing to protect victims of accidents following on from the Fourth Directive. It would perhaps be sensible, Mr Bolkestein, if you did not go into individual amendments in the debate, as we will still, in any case, have to discuss them with the Council. I would like to make a few points to clarify the content. I will begin first of all with the issue of jurisdiction. On this issue the Fifth Directive rounds off the Fourth very well indeed. With the Fourth Directive we made it possible for accidents in another country to be settled in the country of residence. After the Fourth Directive was passed there was, on 22 December 2000, the regulation on
jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. Provision is made there so that with civil liability insurance the domicile of the injured party can be considered a place of jurisdiction when there is a direct claim. This was made possible for accidents in another country in the Fourth Directive and with the fifth this applies to all accidents. This means that it will not only be possible to settle out of court in one’s own country a claim arising in another, but it will also be possible to begin a legal battle in one’s own. We cannot do more than that for the victims of accidents.
What else does this Fifth Directive contain? The costs of judicial proceedings that are deemed to be necessary and appropriate will be reimbursed. When the cost of legal proceedings – for example consultation with a lawyer – are deemed necessary and appropriate, then that is a claim that must be compensated. We must increase the minimum sum. There is a somewhat piecemeal system in the European Union in this area and everybody agrees that, after twenty years, a new provision is needed.
Now, it is a question of the amount and there are, of course, problems with this. It is not exactly easy – and I know this only too well – to raise the minimum sum because that obviously also causes an increase in premiums. The compromise that we came to – EUR 5 million for personal injuries and EUR 2 million for damage to property – is a compromise, with which I think the insurance markets can cope. Incidentally, there is one aspect regarding the minimum sum that must not be overlooked, that is to say, adequately protecting those victims of accidents that are the most affected. Everything in me rebels against the idea that a 20-year-old, paralysed after an accident, is left dependent on social security after 20 years, and in the meantime the injuring party, who is infinitely liable, is also financially ruined. This compromise does, therefore, actually make sense.
We are creating a provision for trailers on motor vehicles. There is a mention of this in an earlier directive, but there are completely different provisions across the European Union. Often the trailer’s registration number is known but not that of the motor vehicle, and then it is very difficult to settle a claim.
I would like to mention two further points Commissioner Bolkestein, which we did not accept in your proposal: Firstly, the person responsible for the settlement of claims taking charge of the provisions of the Green Card Bureaux. We should not carry out this amalgamation, which is superfluous; it damages a system that works, which is what the Green Card Bureaux is. We also dispensed with the provision on the protection of vulnerable travellers; that means making provision for civil liability. That is a very specific problem, and we should work together – the Commission and Parliament – in order to tackle this issue of liability in another directive.
On the whole – and I am coming back to where I began – the cooperation between Parliament and the Commission has been so excellent because we held a European dialogue at European level on all of these issues, between insurers, automobile associations, Parliament, and associations of accident victims – I am referring here to the European Transport Law Seminars in Trier.
It is precisely because we worked extremely hard in this area and discussed a great deal that we can also find solutions together that will help the victims of accidents. I am confident that in further discussions with the Council we will quickly achieve a result. On the whole, it all helps to take us forward and above all: it encourages us to have a European dialogue because when we do have such a dialogue then solutions are easier."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples