Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-05-Speech-2-290"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20050705.30.2-290"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:translated text
". Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as you will know, the Commission has proposed a measure for the payment of damages, which aims to pursue three objectives. We have difficulty, moreover, in accepting the amendments abolishing the special rules. I referred to product liability, which provides for the full protection of the consumer, or to environmental liability. In my opinion, scrapping those special rules would be dangerous. On the other hand, I fully agree with the solution reached by the rapporteur on sensitive issues, such as press defamation and the link between international private law and the internal market. They are two extremely delicate sectors and I believe that the compromise reached is satisfactory. Finally, with reference to traffic accidents, I should like to congratulate Mrs Wallis once again on having thoroughly studied this issue, which is of great practical importance for citizens. As the Commission, we agree with the intention to pursue an extremely in-depth analysis, for example in the framework of implementing Rome II. The first objective is that of predetermining the solutions and therefore of guaranteeing legal certainty to the citizens and to the economic operators that are victims of torts. The second objective is that of facilitating the resolution of disputes before the courts and encouraging mutual recognition of the decisions made by the judges. The third objective is, obviously, that of facilitating as far as possible the resolution of such disputes. In order to achieve these objectives we have proposed a general rule, that is to say, the rule of application of the place where the damage was caused, or rather the place of direct damage. We decided to adopt such an approach, because it is the most widespread solution in the Member States’ legal systems and, in our opinion, the solution that provides the best balance between the parties. The Commission proposal also included a number of special rules, such as liability for defective products or environmental damage. I believe that the general rule does not always allow an appropriate balance to be achieved in these particular issues, for which special provisions are needed. The measure provides for a certain degree of flexibility for judges, in order to allow them to take account of exceptional circumstances. Such flexibility, however, has to be limited, in order to avoid compromising the general objective, or rather legal certainty. In that regard, it is clear that allowing judges to exercise full discretion would make it difficult to predetermine the legal certainty that is one of the main objectives of this initiative, since economic operators and citizens wish to know in advance which law will apply to their situation. In the light of what has been said, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on her high-quality report, the outcome of extremely in-depth consultations, and I should like to thank her for her determination to proceed swiftly, in order for the report to be approved before the summer. In my opinion, the only problematic aspect is an excessive margin of flexibility granted to judges in the amendments tabled by the rapporteur, allowing them to take account of special circumstances on a case-by-case basis. This excessive amount of discretion risks compromising strict legal certainty."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph