Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-01-10-Speech-1-080"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050110.13.1-080"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, in the jargon of the European Union, the Directive we are discussing today is known as the "fifth directive on motor insurance". In reality, it is a directive which modifies five other directives, specifically four Council directives and one European Parliament and Council directive.
Fourthly, direct action against the insurer. Parliament wants the insured party, the victim, to be able to pursue the insurer through their local courts rather than through the insurer’s local courts.
Fifthly, we have the issue of vehicle imports, in relation to which Parliament wants the State that the vehicle is destined for, to be the State responsible for the insurance of imported vehicles rather than State from which it originates.
I believe that, at the end of this debate, Parliament will have a picture of how the situation stands. We are very interested to hear the representative of the Commission, in order to find out the extent to which Parliament is keeping these amendments or accepting any other compromise amendments which may bring us closer to an agreement.
In any event, I hope that Parliament and the Council will soon reach an agreement allowing us to adopt the directive, which would prevent us from having to follow a long formal co-decision procedure and would allow us, by means of an informal co-decision process, to resolve this problem within a very short space of time.
The motor insurance sector has become very important from economic and social points of view as a result of the significant role cars play in our lives. From an economic point of view, it is significant because of the importance of the insurance companies and, from the citizens’ point of view, because of its possible consequences.
In general, it is a sector in which there has been significant intervention from the Member States, with the creation of minimum services of an obligatory nature, which everybody must respect, and with compensation from Member States for cases in which there is no insurance cover.
The Commission presented the proposal on 7 June 2002. It was discussed in this Parliament with Mr Rothley as rapporteur – who is no longer a Member of this House – and following approval by Parliament at first reading in 2003, the Commission and the Council made an amendment which lead to a Council common position which is now very close to the amendments proposed by Parliament at first reading.
We are now at second reading. Specifically, the Committee on the Internal Market approved a text at second reading on 14 December and we hope that this Wednesday we can hold a final vote on the text.
On certain points, there are still differences between the position of Parliament and the common position of the Council.
Firstly, with regard to trailers: what do we do about these vehicles that may or may not be identified with the main vehicle? Furthermore, this is a sector in which vehicles that have not previously been insurable could become so, which would have a series of legal and economic consequences.
Secondly, with regard to legal costs, Parliament wants these to be included in the damages paid to victims.
Thirdly, with regard to the amount of damages, I believe that at the moment we are discussing more than one difference with regard to the formulation of the amount itself, so that Parliament’s proposal cannot be interpreted as implying a restriction in the amount, but rather the principle for damages."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples