Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-06-Speech-4-011"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070906.2.4-011"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to start by thanking Mrs Patrie for her good cooperation and work on this report. From our perspective, I believe we could have fully supported the outcome of the committee's work. Consumer protection is extremely important, especially to the PPE-DE Group.
I have three minutes, so let me say a few key words: first of all, it is absolutely right, as Mrs Wallis has also just said, that there is a need to review the joined-up thinking – the coherence – of the various Directives as part of the ‘better law-making’ agenda, and to some extent to consolidate the common elements with a view to a systematic review. In this context, however, we do not want to see any expansion towards a consumer contract law, and the efforts must also be coordinated very closely with the work on the common frame of reference (CFR), which must be taken into consideration. What is also important, from our perspective, is absolute coherence with the provisions of Rome I, i.e. the applicable provisions in private international law.
As regards the individual Directives, I broadly endorse the minimum harmonisation approach – and what Mrs Patrie has said – but this does not exclude the possibility that individual areas should be conclusively regulated where possible. However, a cautious approach should be adopted here, taking account of the cultural characteristics and circumstances in the individual Member States; otherwise, overregulation will be the result.
I would just like to draw attention to Amendment 4 tabled by the Socialist Group, which states that in the framework of harmonisation no regulatory provision may be abolished in a Member State. This would mean that if harmonisation takes place – in other words, if everything is added together at the end – then the outcome will be the opposite of what you, Commissioner, have quite rightly called for, namely clear and simple legislation that works for everyone. Instead, the outcome could be overregulation, and that is not what we want.
More generally, the Commission has raised a number of sometimes very serious questions about the individual Directives, which require very careful review and to which we have responded individually. In particular, we reject class actions: we do not want US conditions in Europe. We also reject producers' liability or the restriction of freedom of contract if individually negotiated clauses or the price is to be reviewed in the framework of the standard terms and conditions of business and the abuse clauses.
I just want to point out that an integrated approach is crucial. Consumers are not only consumers; they are also entrepreneurs, company employees – could I just ask how much time I have left, I was not listening before: I thought I had three minutes, so I am being quite quick – and they also have an interest in the welfare of their companies. A holistic view is therefore essential. I am sure the Commission takes the same view. We cannot only ever look at this issue from one perspective. Consumers are not well-served if they are presented with comprehensive legislation that ultimately destroys the opportunities for the economy and their own businesses.
On that note, I would like to reiterate my thanks to everyone involved in the deliberations on this issue."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples