Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-01-12-Speech-3-077"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050112.6.3-077"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The purpose of the proposal before us is to update the minimum amounts of compulsory cover, within the framework of Community harmonisation on this matter, in the directive in question on motor vehicle security.
The main problem with this proposal is that of striking a balance between, on the one hand, the need to improve victim protection cover – cover for personal and material damage – in the event of a car accident involving a car of relatively low value and the fact, on the other hand, that improvement in cover of this nature will result in a rise in insurance premiums, when the ‘prices’ charged by insurers are not monitored.
A further aspect of this issue is the general problem of harmonisation when economic situations vary from country to country. This must be taken into account, especially in southern countries, such as Portugal, which have always had reservations on this issue. Portugal has had a transitional period in which to adapt national legislation. The common position provides for a further transitional period of five years, which I believe strikes a better balance.
Nevertheless, the proposals to raise minimum amounts to EUR 1 million per victim and EUR 5 million per event, regardless of the number of victims, is excessive, particularly the latter."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples